MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126779954 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2006.891006

An Iterative Absorbing Boundary Condition Using Varying Element Orders

2007· article· en· W2126779954 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationFinite element methodRadar cross-sectionBoundary value problemIterative methodComputer scienceElectromagnetic fieldBoundary (topology)Time domainComputational electromagneticsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisMathematical optimizationAlgorithmRadarPhysicsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iterative absorbing boundary conditions (ABCs) are a way of truncating the unbounded domain of an electromagnetic wave problem. They require repeated solution of the field problem, with the ABC updated each time. Here, the computational expense is reduced by solving with low-order finite elements (FEs) in the early iterations and progressively increasing the order. Results for the radar cross section (RCS) of the metallic and dielectric obstacles demonstrate that the approach is accurate and significantly reduces the computation time

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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