MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143386199 · doi:10.1109/eurcon.2007.4400480

Time-Domain Computational Electromagnetics Algorithms for GPU Based Computers

2007· article· en· W2143386199 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNvidia
KeywordsComputer scienceComputational scienceSupercomputerMassively parallelElectromagneticsComputational electromagneticsGraphics processing unitDomain (mathematical analysis)GraphicsGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsParallel computingComputationCUDAFinite-difference time-domain methodGridComputer engineeringAlgorithmComputer graphics (images)Electronic engineeringElectromagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time-domain computational electromagnetic algorithms such as FDTD and TLM require computers with superb processing power and large memory capacity. Grid computing network, cluster computer and massively parallel supercomputers have been the hardware of choices for running powerful modelling tools based on these methods. As a result, high performance modelling tools are only available to elite groups of researchers and big corporations. Stream computing, a new technology that harnesses the tremendous numerical processing power of advanced graphics processing units for general purpose numerical computation, is going to bring high performance time-domain modelling tools to the EM community. This paper reviews the emerging GPU technologies and programming models. Two modelling examples are also used to illustrate the suitability of GPU computing for time-domain electromagnetics.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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