MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981397569 · doi:10.1109/mmm.2011.2181449

Double the Band and Optimize

2012· article· en· W1981397569 on OpenAlexafffund
Karun Rawat, Mohammad Hashmi, Fadhel M. Ghannouchi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Microwave Magazine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta InnovatesCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMulti-band deviceElectronic engineeringOffset (computer science)Dual (grammatical number)Computer scienceOut-of-band managementEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the design methodologies and performance optimization strategies of dual-band DPA. The state of art in dual-band DPA has been demonstrated with further considerations for optimizing overall performance. Two main optimization strategies are applied: using dual-band phase offset as an all-pass filter and unequal-power division at the input with distinct power division ratio at two frequencies of operation. The performance improvement with these optimization strategies is demonstrated with a case study of a dual-band DPA operating at 1.96 GHz and 3.5 GHz. The use of stub-loaded dispersive structures has been elaborated on in the design of various dual-band components employed in the dual-band DPA architecture. The dual-band DPA architecture, in theory, can be achieved from direct replacement of each single-band component with conventional dual-band components. In practice, however, several optimization strategies are needed to enhance the performance of the designed dual-band DPA. This article elaborated on some of the optimization strategies with appropriate design examples to demonstrate the use fulness of these optimization strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Microwave MagazineSame topicMicrowave Engineering and WaveguidesFrench-language works237,207