MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335524246 · doi:10.1061/40628(268)34

Comparison of HPC Methods for Long-Term Contaminant Modeling

2002· article· en· W2335524246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark S. Dortch, Terry K. Gerald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Data Storage Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMessage Passing InterfaceSupercomputerGridSpeedupTributaryDomain decomposition methodsParallel computingComputational scienceFortranMessage passingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model simulations on the order of decades are required to fully evaluate the effects of system alterations on the estuarine/coastal environment since these environments and their components (e.g., bottom sediments, sea grass, nutrient stores, etc.) can have long response times and process memories. High performance computing (HPC) is required to make such simulations feasible. Modern HPC methods can decrease computation time by orders of magnitude, thus, making such long-term calculations feasible and practical. An investigation was conducted to evaluate the performance of various methods and machines for executing a three-dimensional contaminant transport/fate model for surface water where the Hudson River Estuary was used for the test case. Domain decomposition was used with two grid-partitioning methods, METIS and Hilbert Space filling Curve Technique (HSFT). The Message Passing Interface (MPI) was incorporated into model source code to provide the capability to execute multiple sub-domains on different numbers of processor elements (PEs). The code was written to be portable among various machines with varying numbers of PEs. Tests were conducted for the Hudson River contaminant model example for varying levels of grid resolution for both grid-partitioning methods on three machines (Cray T3E, SGI Origin 2000, and IBM SP) with varying numbers of processors (from 1 up to 64 PEs) to evaluate both parallel and scaled speedup. The conclusions of these tests are presented. The methodology was successfully used to conduct the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Refinement Model Study, where 20-year simulations were required on a relatively dense grid, thus, making it feasible to investigate many management scenarios in a timely and practical manner.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207