MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966592576 · doi:10.1049/ip-map:20060015

Improving microstrip patch antenna performance using EBG substrates

2006· article· en· W1966592576 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEE Proceedings - Microwaves Antennas and Propagation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Antenna and Metasurface Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGround planeMicrostrip antennaPatch antennaMaterials scienceElectrical impedanceMicrostripAntenna (radio)MetamaterialOptoelectronicsHigh impedanceAcousticsElectronic engineeringEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microstrip patch antennas mounted over a high impedance electromagnetic bandgap (EBG) substrate are studied. The structure is equivalent to a new microstrip antenna, where the conducting ground plane is replaced by a high impedance EBG layer. Initially, the bandgap of the EBG structure is determined. Then, patch antennas with this EBG ground plane are designed to work within and outside the bandgaps. Parametric studies are conducted to maximise their impedance bandwidths and gains. It is found that very wide bandwidths, of around 25%, can be obtained by variation of the original antenna and EBG parameters. Their gains are similarly increased. Sample antennas are also fabricated and tested, to verify the designs.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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