MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991661708 · doi:10.1109/lawp.2012.2187632

Design and Experimental Evaluation of Miniaturized Monopole UHF RFID Tag Antennas

2012· article· en· W1991661708 on OpenAlexaff
A. E. Abdulhadi, Ramesh Abhari

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRFID technology advancements
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltra high frequencyMeander (mathematics)Monopole antennaAntenna (radio)Magnetic monopoleHelical antennaPhysicsDipole antennaElectrical engineeringImpedance matchingRadiation patternDirectional antennaAcousticsElectronic engineeringSlot antennaElectrical impedanceEngineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter reports the design and experimental evaluation of three compact printed monopole antennas for UHF RFID applications. The antennas that include folded, 2-D meander, and 3-D meander monopole designs are inductively coupled to RFID chips and are fabricated using a 1.524-mm-thick Rogers RB4350B substrate with the relative permittivity of 3.66. Experimental results reveal that these tags cover the worldwide UHF RFID operation band (860-960 MHz) with a maximum readable range of 6.3 m for the folded monopole, 5.39 m for the 2-D meander, and 5.24 m for the 3-D meander monopole designs with an effective isotropic radiated power of 3.28 W. A method for measuring the radiation pattern of an assembled UHF RFID tag without the use of any additional matching circuits or feeding wires is presented. This method is used to measure the radiation pattern of the fabricated 3-D meander monopole tag antenna.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation LettersSame topicRFID technology advancementsFrench-language works237,207