MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567119097 · doi:10.3991/ijoe.v12i12.6453

A Front Tracking Method Based on Runge-Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

2016· article· en· W2567119097 on OpenAlexaff
Xu-jiu Zhang, Yongsheng Zhu, Ke Yan, Youyun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsLimiterTracking (education)Discontinuous Galerkin methodInterface (matter)Shock (circulatory)Monotonic functionMathematicsShock waveApplied mathematicsFlow (mathematics)Mathematical analysisComputer scienceAlgorithmNumerical analysisMechanicsGeometryPhysicsEngineeringFinite element methodStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a high-resolution front tracking method was presented for interface tracking simulation with Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods. An interface treating method of the discontinuous methods is presented. This method don’t construct the ghost fluid and the flow information on both sides next to the interface is used to solve the interfacial status. The limiter adopted the combination of the shock detection and monotonicity-preserving limiter and level set method is used for tracking the interface. Result shown that the front tracking of the high-order accurate Runge-Kutta discontinuous Galerkin method exhibits very good agreement with exact solution in the interface condition that contain strong shock.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE)Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207