MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W24179742 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2012.09.010

Non-standard finite difference methods in dynamical systems

2009· dissertation· en· W24179742 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. Kama

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Research Foundation
KeywordsDynamical systems theoryComputer scienceStatistical physicsMathematicsPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis analyses numerical methods used in finding solutions of diferential equations. Numerical methods are viewed as discrete dynamical systems that give useful information on continuous dynamical systems defined by systems of (ordinary) diferential equations. We analyse non-standard finite difference schemes that have no spurious fixed-points compared to the dynamical system under consideration, the linear stability/instability property of the fixed-points being the same for both the discrete and continuous systems. We obtain a sharper condition for the elementary stability of the schemes. For more complex dynamical systems which are dissipative, we design schemes that replicate this property. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of the above analysis on the numerical solution of partial differential equations. We specifically focus on reaction-diffusion equations that arise in many fields of engineering and applied sciences. Often their solutions enjoy the follow- ing essential properties: Stability/instability of the fixed points for the space independent equation, the conservation of energy for the stationary equation, and boundedness and positivity. We design new non-standard finite diference schemes which replicate these properties. Our construction make use of three strategies: the renormalization of the denominator of the discrete derivative, non-local approximation of the nonlinear terms and simple functional relation between step sizes. Numerical results that support the theory are provided. Copyright

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.368 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207