MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409234114 · doi:10.3390/fractalfract9040230

The LDG Finite-Element Method for Multi-Order FDEs: Applications to Circuit Equations

2025· article· en· W4409234114 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

VenueFractal and Fractional · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodOrder (exchange)Element (criminal law)MathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisEngineeringStructural engineeringPolitical scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research study presents a comprehensive analysis of the local discontinuous Galerkin (LDG) method for solving multi-order fractional differential equations (FDEs), with an emphasis on circuit modeling applications. We investigated the existence, uniqueness, and numerical stability of LDG-based discretized formulation, leveraging the Liouville–Caputo fractional derivative and upwind numerical fluxes to discretize governing equations while preserving stability. The method was validated through benchmark test cases, including comparisons with analytical solutions and established numerical techniques (e.g., Gegenbauer wavelets and Dickson collocation). The results demonstrate that the LDG method achieves high-accuracy solutions (e.g., with a relatively large time step size) and reduced computational costs, which are attributed to its element-wise formulation. These findings position LDG as a promising tool for complex scientific and engineering applications, particularly in modeling fractional-order systems such as RL, RLC circuits, and other electrical circuit equations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.316 · 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