MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143353673 · doi:10.1109/20.996093

Combined direct-iterative matrix solvers for hierarchal vector finite elements

2002· article· en· W2143353673 on OpenAlexaff
J.P. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjugate gradient methodSolverDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Finite element methodKrylov subspaceMatrix (chemical analysis)Iterative methodComputer scienceConvergence (economics)Applied mathematicsElectromagneticsSubspace topologyReduction (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisPhysicsGeometryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A preconditioned conjugate gradient solver works reasonably well for the matrix equations obtained when hierarchal vector finite elements are applied to problems in three-dimensional electromagnetics. By adding to the elements a redundant subspace of constant gradient functions, considerably faster convergence is achieved. Further improvement is possible by combining the iterative solver with direct approaches: by employing a frontal solver for the lowest order degrees of freedom and by eliminating the interior degrees of freedom from each element. With these methods, the number of iterations is virtually unchanged up to fourth order, and during p-adaptive analysis the time taken for matrix solution grows with the number of degrees of freedom at about the same rate as it does in h-adaption, despite the reduction in sparsity.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0060.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207