Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bioelectric modeling problems, such as electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, transcranial electrical stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and transcranial magnetic stimulation, among others, can be approached through the formulation and resolution of integral equations of the boundary element method (BEM). Recently, it has been realized that the charge-based formulation of the BEM is naturally well-suited for the application of the fast multipole method (FMM). The FMM is a powerful algorithm for the computation of many-body interactions and is widely applied in electromagnetic modeling problems. With the introduction of BEM-FMM in the context of bioelectromagnetism, the BEM can now compete with the finite element method (FEM) in a number of application cases. This survey has two goals: first, to give a modern account of the main BEM formulations in the literature and their integration with FMM, directed to general researchers involved in development of BEM software for bioelectromagnetic applications. Second, to survey different techniques and available software, and to contrast different BEM and FEM approaches. As a new contribution, we showcase that the charge-based formulation is dual to the more common surface potential formulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".