MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993400099 · doi:10.1163/156939309790416053

Experimental Investigation of New Ultra Wideband In-Phase and Quadrature-Phase Power Splitters

2009· article· en· W1993400099 on OpenAlexaff
Abdel-Razik Sebak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSplitterInsertion lossPhase (matter)AmplitudeReturn lossPower dividers and directional couplersWidebandMicrostripPower (physics)Electronic engineeringOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and realization of a new in-phase and quadrature-phase power splitters for ultra wideband (UWB) applications are described in this paper. The in-phase power splitter is first designed and then the quadrature-phase power splitter (QPS) is developed using the designed in-phase power splitter, a conventional microstrip transmission line (MS) TL, and a well-synthesized metamaterial (MM) TL. The phase response of the MM TL is synthesized to achieve the desired 90° phase difference over an UWB frequency range. Two splitters were designed, implemented for UWB operation and experimentally demonstrated. To examine the performances of the proposed splitters, even-odd mode analysis, numerical simulations and experimental measurements were carried out. The comparison between simulated and experimental results shows a good agreement. Results show that the proposed in-phase power splitter has good insertion loss with equal power split, acceptable return loss at all ports and satisfactory isolation performances within the whole UWB frequency range. The proposed QPS has an output amplitude imbalance of less than 2.4 dB and a phase error of less than +15° from 3.0–9.0 GHz (100% FBW).

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 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electromagnetic Waves and ApplicationsSame topicMicrowave Engineering and WaveguidesFrench-language works237,207