MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1881038681 · doi:10.1139/p2012-012

Microwave propagation in a magnetized inhomogeneous plasma slab using the Appleton–Hartree magnetoionic theory

2012· article· en· W1881038681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. S. Bawa’aneh, Ahmed M. Al-Khateeb, Aymen S. Sawalha

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPlasmaReflection (computer programming)SlabAbsorption (acoustics)OpticsComputational physicsWave propagationElectromagnetic radiationRefractionMicrowaveQuantum mechanicsGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetic wave propagation in a nonuniform, collisional, magnetized plasma slab is investigated within magnetoionic theory. We allow for the presence of an ideal conductor at a distance d from the right transmissive plasma boundary, and derive the reflection, absorption, and transmission coefficients analytically for an arbitrary inhomogeneous plasma density profile. Dividing the inhomogeneous plasma slab into n thin layers allows for treating each layer as a homogeneous plasma and, therefore, the complex index of refraction of the magnetoionic theory is used to express the complex propagation vector of the waves in each layer. Upon matching the fields at all interfaces, a global matrix is formed that allows for the determination of the reflection, absorption, and transmission coefficients analytically. Results show that in the absence of the metallic wall, the reflected signal is a weak peak near ω ce , while in the presence of the metallic wall this weak signal is overwhelmed by a strong transmitted peak from right to left after it has been reflected by the perfectly conducting metallic wall. Also, formation of a wider stealth band as the plasma density increases is observed.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207