MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206302443 · doi:10.1093/imanum/drab103

Numerical analysis of the LDG method for large deformations of prestrained plates

2021· article· en· W4206302443 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIMA Journal of Numerical Analysis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsDiscretizationConstraint (computer-aided design)Balanced flowInitializationMetric (unit)Numerical analysisConvergence (economics)Flow (mathematics)Boundary (topology)Nonlinear systemApplied mathematicsStability (learning theory)Mathematical analysisGeometryComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A local discontinuous Galerkin (LDG) method for approximating large deformations of prestrained plates is introduced and tested on several insightful numerical examples in Bonito et al. (2022, LDG approximation of large deformations of prestrained plates. J. Comput. Phys., 448, 110719). This paper presents a numerical analysis of this LDG method, focusing on the free boundary case. The problem consists of minimizing a fourth-order bending energy subject to a nonlinear and nonconvex metric constraint. The energy is discretized using LDG and a discrete gradient flow is used for computing discrete minimizers. We first show $\varGamma $-convergence of the discrete energy to the continuous one. Then we prove that the discrete gradient flow decreases the energy at each step and computes discrete minimizers with control of the metric constraint defect. We also present a numerical scheme for initialization of the gradient flow and discuss the conditional stability of it.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.321 · 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