Study of <i>Q</i> ‐factors of ridge and groove gap waveguide resonators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gap waveguide technology for millimeter waves applications has been recently presented. The new structure is made by generating a parallel plate cut‐off region between an artificial magnetic conductor (AMC) and a metallic plate. Propagating waves will be only allowed to follow a metal ridge or groove surrounded by the AMC. The gap waveguide can be made of only metal and does not need any contact between the metal joints compared to standard waveguides. In this study, a study of Q ‐factors of resonators made in ridge and groove gap waveguides are presented. The resonators are made of copper and the AMC used is a textured surface of metallic pins. Simulated and measured unloaded Q s are presented and compared with Q of a standard rectangular waveguide. High Q ‐factors are measured for the prototypes presented, approaching 90–96% of the simulated values. Furthermore, it is shown how the lid of pins can easily stop the leakage loss at the joints of the circuit, which is the typical cause of reduced Q ‐factor of standard waveguides at high frequency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".