Comparaison de Différents Outils de Calcul pour la Modélisation des Supraconducteurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
indispensables à la modélisation et la conception de dispositifs supraconducteurs. Dans cet article, nous avons comparé le logiciel de calcul par éléments finis Flux ® à un code de calcul en C++ maison. Le problème traité est un problème 2D de courants induits dans une pastille supraconductrice (comportement fortement non linéaire). Il s’agit d’étudier l’aimantation de cette dernière lors d’une impulsion de champ magnétique. Les distributions de courant obtenues par les 2 outils numériques sont comparées à un instant donné du processus d’aimantation. Le problème est résolu à la fois en 2D et en 3D dans Flux®. Nous regardons notamment l’influence de plusieurs paramètres (pas de temps, maillage…) afin de donner les points clefs d’une modélisation efficace des supraconducteurs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".