MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804030256 · doi:10.1137/17m113544x

Analysis of Galerkin FEMs for Mixed Formulation of Time-Dependent Ginzburg--Landau Equations Under Temporal Gauge

2018· article· en· W2804030256 on OpenAlexaff
Chengda Wu, Weiwei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersResearch Grants Council, University Grants CommitteeCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsMathematicsDiscontinuous Galerkin methodMagnetic fieldVortexDegeneracy (biology)SuperconductivityGalerkin methodLandau quantizationGauge theoryNumerical analysisNorm (philosophy)Gauge (firearms)Mathematical analysisApplied mathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsFinite element methodQuantum mechanicsLawMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper focuses on analysis of linearized Galerkin FEMs for a mixed formulation of the time-dependent Ginzburg--Landau equations under the temporal gauge. We provide optimal error estimates in $L^2$-norm for the order parameter $\psi_h$ and the magnetic field $\sigma_h$ unconditionally, although the accuracy of the numerical magnetic potential $\mathbf{A}_h$ is one-order lower than the optimal one due to the degeneracy of the magnetic potential equation. Since the states of superconductors are determined by the order parameter $\psi_h$ (or the density of the superconducting electron pairs $|\psi_h|$), the accuracy of $\psi_h$ is more important for the vortex simulation in superconditors. Our analysis is based on a nonclassical Ritz projection, which may reduce the pollution of inaccuracy of the numerical magnetic potential in analysis. Numerical experiments confirm our theoretical analysis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Numerical AnalysisSame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207