MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116916027

ERROR ANALYSIS FOR A FAST NUMERICAL METHOD TO A BOUNDARY INTEGRAL EQUATION OF THE FIRST KIND

2008· article· en· W2116916027 on OpenAlexaff
Jingtang Ma, Tao Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Mathematics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsNumerical analysisBoundary element methodQuadrature (astronomy)Rate of convergenceNyström methodMatrix (chemical analysis)Collocation (remote sensing)Numerical stabilityApplied mathematicsCollocation methodMathematical analysisConvergence (economics)LogarithmBoundary value problemFinite element methodComputer scienceDifferential equation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For two-dimensional boundary integral equations of the first kind with logarithmic kernels, the use of the conventional boundary element methods gives linear systems with dense matrix. In a recent work [J. Comput. Math., 22 (2004), pp. 287-298], it is demonstrated that the dense matrix can be replaced by a sparse one if appropriate graded meshes are used in the quadrature rules. The numerical experiments also indicate that the proposed numerical methods require less computational time than the conventional ones while the formal rate of convergence can be preserved. The purpose of this work is to establish a stability and convergence theory for this fast numerical method. The stability analysis depends on a decomposition of the coefficient matrix for the collocation equation. The formal orders of convergence observed in the numerical experiments are proved rigorously.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational MathematicsSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207