MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114428433 · doi:10.1002/nme.1979

Computation of accurate nodal derivatives of finite element solutions: the finite node displacement method

2007· article· en· W2114428433 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Ilinca, D. Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaPolytechnique MontréalNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperconvergenceFinite element methodDiscretizationNode (physics)Finite differenceMathematicsScalar (mathematics)Displacement (psychology)Boundary value problemComputationMathematical analysisFinite strip methodBoundary (topology)Applied mathematicsGeometryAlgorithmStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a new method for extracting high‐accuracy nodal derivatives from finite element solutions. The approach involves imposing a finite displacement to individual mesh nodes, and solving a very small problem on the patch of surrounding elements, whose only unknown is the value of the solution at the displaced node. A finite difference between the original and perturbed values provides the directional derivative. Verification is shown for a one‐dimensional diffusion problem with exact nodal solution and for two‐dimensional scalar advective–diffusive problems. For internal nodes the method yields accuracy slightly superior to that of the superconvergent patch recovery (SPR) technique of Zienkiewicz and Zhu (ZZ). We also present a variant of the method to treat boundary nodes. In this case, the local discretization is enriched by inserting an additional mesh point very close to the boundary node of interest. We show that the new method gives normal derivatives at boundary points that are consistent with the so‐called ‘auxiliary fluxes’. The resulting nodal derivatives are much more accurate than those obtained by the ZZ SPR technique. Copyright © 2007 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207