MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776780344 · doi:10.1002/num.22237

A reliable algorithm for the approximate solution of the nonlinear Lane‐Emden type equations arising in astrophysics

2017· article· en· W2776780344 on OpenAlexaff
Harendra Singh, H. M. Srivastava, Devendra Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFractional Differential Equations Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsChebyshev polynomialsJacobi polynomialsPolynomialGegenbauer polynomialsLegendre polynomialsConvergence (economics)Nonlinear systemOrthogonal polynomialsApplied mathematicsNumerical analysisMathematical analysisOrthogonal collocationClassical orthogonal polynomialsCollocation methodDifferential equationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a reliable algorithm to obtain the approximate solution of the nonlinear Lane‐Emden type equations arising in astrophysics. The suggested algorithm is based upon the operational matrix of integration for Jacobi polynomials and the collocation method. Convergence analysis and numerical stability of the suggested method are provided. Numerical results for several interesting nonlinear cases of the Lane‐Emden type equations such as the standard Lane‐Emden equation, the white‐dwarf equation, and the isothermal gas spheres equation, as well as Richardson's theory of thermionic current are discussed. These numerical results are shown in the form of tables and figures for the particular cases of Jacobi polynomials such as the Legendre polynomial (P1), the Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind (P2), the Chebyshev polynomials of the third kind (P3), the Chebyshev polynomials of the fourth kind (P4), and the Gegenbauer (or ultraspherical) polynomials (P5). Numerical results are also compared with those that were derived earlier by applying some well‐known and recently developed numerical methods and it is observed that our numerical results are more accurate. The maximum absolute errors and the root mean square errors are calculated by using P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 for comparison purposes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNumerical Methods for Partial Differential EquationsSame topicFractional Differential Equations SolutionsFrench-language works237,207