MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158658633

Programming the Finite Element Method: Simplified Chinese Edition

2017· article· en· W3158658633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. M. Smith, Lee Margetts, D. V. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodElement (criminal law)Computer scienceCalculus (dental)MathematicsEngineeringPolitical scienceStructural engineeringLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many students, engineers, scientists and researchers have benefited from the practical, programming-oriented style of the previous editions of Programming the Finite Element Method, learning how to develop computer programs to solve specific engineering problems using the finite element method. This new fifth edition offers timely revisions that include programs and subroutine libraries fully updated to Fortran 2003, which are freely available online, and provides updated material on advances in parallel computing, thermal stress analysis, plasticity return algorithms, convection boundary conditions, and interfaces to third party tools such as ParaView, METIS and ARPACK. As in the previous editions, a wide variety of problem solving capabilities are presented including structural analysis, elasticity and plasticity, construction processes in geomechanics, uncoupled and coupled steady and transient fluid flow and linear and nonlinear solid dynamics. Key features: Updated to take into account advances in parallel computing as well as new material on thermal stress analysis Programs use an updated version of Fortran 2003 Includes exercises for students Accompanied by website hosting software Programming the Finite Element Method , Fifth Edition is an ideal textbook for undergraduate and postgraduate students in civil and mechanical engineering, applied mathematics and numerical analysis, and is also a comprehensive reference for researchers and practitioners . Further information and source codes described in this text can be accessed at the following web sites: www.inside.mines.edu/~vgriffit /PFEM5 for the serial programs from Chapters 4-11 www.parafem.org.uk for the parallel programs from Chapter 12.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester)Same topicNumerical methods in engineeringFrench-language works237,207