MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282915768 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2015.2487959

Implementation of Iron Loss Model on Graphic Processing Units

2015· article· en· W2282915768 on OpenAlex
Sajid Hussain, Rodrigo Silva, David A. Lowther

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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSpeedupParallel computingMicroprocessorSolverProcess (computing)Massively parallelMulti-core processorComputational scienceTask (project management)Parallel processingCUDAParallelism (grammar)Computer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design engineers are always looking for extra computational power to speed up the execution of their tasks. One way to achieve this speedup is to identify tasks with a high degree of parallelism and process them with graphic processing units (GPUs). GPUs are optimized to process such tasks efficiently and quickly in massive multicore hardware. The steps involved in a finite-element (FE) electromagnetic simulation are computationally very expensive. One such step is the communication between FE solver and the material loss model that takes place for all the elements in the mesh for each time step. This task is massively parallel and, thus, could be executed in a GPU. As an example, a physics-based material model, the Jiles-Atherton model, is implemented in a GPU to compute the B-H hysteretic relationship, which can be directly incorporated in FE simulations. The performance of the GPU is compared with that of the given microprocessor in terms of computational time. A time gain of 13.8 times has been achieved.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.236 · 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