MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317632490 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-2368

High-Order Reconstruction of Defect Corrected Solutions on Unstructured Meshes

2023· article· en· W4317632490 on OpenAlexaff
Akhil Jayasankar, Carl Ollivier‐Gooch

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshSolverFinite volume methodTruncation (statistics)Computer scienceApplied mathematicsStability (learning theory)PiecewiseVolume (thermodynamics)Control volumeWork (physics)Mathematical optimizationOrder (exchange)AlgorithmComputational fluid dynamicsMathematicsMathematical analysisMechanical engineeringEngineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2368.vid In spite of being more efficient than mesh refinement in terms of memory and computational work requirements, higher-order (greater than second-order) methods are not very common in commercial CFD codes because of stability issues. In previous work, we have shown that defect correction with a good estimate of the truncation error is an efficient alternative method in improving the accuracy of the control volume averages from a finite volume solver beyond second-order. In this paper, the higher-order accurate control volume average is used to get a piecewise continuous solution that mimics a higher-order reconstruction, which can be used to get better estimates of output functionals. The treatment of curved boundaries to get higher-order accurate integral functionals is also described.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA SCITECH 2023 ForumSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207