MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117905233 · doi:10.1002/nme.4374

On a new edge‐based gradient recovery technique

2012· article· en· W2117905233 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoit Pouliot, M. Fortin, A. Fortin, Éric Chamberland

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConjugate gradient methodFinite element methodComputationA priori and a posterioriGradient methodLagrange multiplierEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionApplied mathematicsSimple (philosophy)Mathematical optimizationBoundary (topology)Computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY A posteriori error estimation methods for mesh adaptation often require an accurate computation of the gradient of a Lagrange finite element solution. The precision of the error estimation is directly related to the accuracy of the recovered gradient. We therefore present in this communication a simple method for the evaluation of the gradient of a linear Lagrange finite element solution, and we show that it has significant advantages over existing methods of the same order. The proposed method requires the solution of a global linear system that can be solved by a preconditioned conjugate gradient method. An interesting feature is that it does not require any special treatment for boundary nodes contrarily to classical local patch recovery methods. Copyright © 2012 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.406
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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