MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555420911 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2010-0013

HAMILTONIAN AS ERROR INDICATOR IN THE <i>P</i>-VERSION OF FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

2010· article· en· W2555420911 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yong-Lin Kuo, William L. Cleghorn, Kamran Behdinan

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)Finite element methodResidualApplied mathematicsError analysisApproximation errorMethod of mean weighted residualsMathematicsRate of convergenceHamiltonian systemPolynomialMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical analysisPhysicsGalerkin method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the Hamiltonian-based error analysis applied to two-dimensional elasostatic problems. The accuracy enhancement is achieved by using the p-version of finite element method. The results show that the Hamiltonian error has faster rates of convergence at lower order of interpolation polynomials to compare with the energy error, and the Hamiltonian error clearly indicates great error reductions at a certain polynomial order. This can not only obtain an accurate enough solution but also save extra computational time. Another strategy is presented by computing the residual of the Hamiltonian-based governing equations. Relative values of residuals between elements can provide an index of selecting the best polynomial orders. Illustrative examples show the validities of the two approaches.

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 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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207