MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115646318 · doi:10.1002/nag.902

A three‐point time discretization technique for parabolic partial differential equations

2010· article· en· W2115646318 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationMathematicsSpurious relationshipPartial differential equationOscillation (cell signaling)Stability (learning theory)Variable (mathematics)Numerical analysisApplied mathematicsParabolic partial differential equationNumerical stabilityScheme (mathematics)Mathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Crank–Nicolson scheme has second‐order accuracy, but often leads to oscillations affecting numerical stability. On the other hand, the implicit scheme is free from oscillation, but it has only first‐order accuracy. In this work, a three‐point discretization scheme with variable time step is presented for the time marching of parabolic partial differential equations. The method proposed has second‐order accuracy, is unconditionally stable and dampens spurious oscillations of the numerical results. The application and effectiveness of the new method are demonstrated through several numerical examples. It is shown that, unlike the Crank–Nicolson method, the approach proposed produces no oscillatory response irrespective of the time step adopted. Copyright © 2010 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.377 · 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