MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963878141 · doi:10.1049/iet-map.2013.0081

Study of <i>Q</i> ‐factors of ridge and groove gap waveguide resonators

2013· article· en· W1963878141 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

VenueIET Microwaves Antennas & Propagation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsRidgeResonatorGroove (engineering)OpticsMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsPhysicsEngineeringGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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