MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972591748 · doi:10.1002/mop.21625

Electromagnetic scattering by arbitrary shaped inhomogeneous impedance cylinder using physical optics method

2006· article· en· W1972591748 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Necmi Serkan Tezel, Selçuk Paker

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrowave and Optical Technology Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsScatteringElectrical impedanceCylinderImpedance parametersPhysicsMicrowavePhysical opticsElectromagnetic fieldBoundary value problemOpticsWave impedanceInversion (geology)Electric fieldMathematical analysisComputational physicsMathematicsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The electromagnetic scattering problem related to an arbitrarily shaped inhomogeneous impedance cylinder is investigated using the physical optics (PO) method. In the solution, induced electric and magnetic currents on the illuminated region of the impedance surface are expressed by means of the incident field and the inhomogeneous impedance boundary condition (IBC), then the scattered field is calculated using the Huygens‐type Green's formula. Obtained scattering width (SW) results are compared with those obtained by other analytical and numeric methods and good agreements are observed, especially for the monostatic case. Because of the fact that the PO method does not need matrix inversion, which requires high CPU time, the PO method also significantly reduces the computer calculation time according the other methods. In this study, the TM case is considered, but a similar procedure can be easily applied to TE case and also 3D inhomogeneous impedance objects. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 48: 1282–1286, 2006; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/mop.21625

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 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 score0.033
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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrowave and Optical Technology LettersSame topicElectromagnetic Scattering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207