MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205089774 · doi:10.1090/noti1276

Rigorous Numerics in Dynamics

2015· article· en· W2205089774 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

VenueNotices of the American Mathematical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamics (music)Statistical physicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonlinear dynamics shape the world around us, from the harmonious movements of celestial bodies, via the swirling motions in fluid flows, to the complicated biochemistry in the living cell. Mathematically these beautiful phenomena are modeled by nonlinear dynamical systems, mainly in the form of ordinary differential equations (ODEs), partial differential equations (PDEs) and delay differential equations (DDEs). The presence of nonlinearities severely complicates the mathematical analysis of these dynamical systems, and the difficulties are even greater for PDEs and DDEs, which are naturally defined on infinite-dimensional function spaces. With the availability of powerful computers and sophisticated software, numerical simulations have quickly become the primary tool to study the models. However, while the pace of progress increases, one may ask: just how reliable are our computations? Even for finite-dimensional ODEs, this question naturally arises if the system under study is chaotic, as small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computations) yield wildly diverging outcomes. These issues have motivated the development of the field of rigorous numerics in dynamics.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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