Determining the sign of the index in metamaterials composed of split ring resonators and strip wires using dispersion diagrams or the insertion phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using full wave simulations the behavior of two structures composed of split ring resonators (SRRs) and strip wires (SWs) is examined. In the region where the real parts of the permittivity and permeability are both expected to be negative both structures exhibit a transmission peak, a property which is generally assumed to imply a negative index of refraction. However, through an analysis of the dispersion characteristics and insertion phase of the two structures it is shown that only the index in the first structure, in which the SRRs and SWs are printed on opposite sides of a dielectric substrate, is negative in the passband. In the second structure, in which SRRs and SWs are printed on the same side of the substrate, the index in the passband is positive. Therefore the emergence of transmission peaks does not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of a negative index of refraction. To determine the correct sign of the index two methods are investigated. The first uses the transmission phase for propagation through various lengths of the structure and the second utilizes its dispersion diagrams. The dependence of the sign of the index on the dimensions of the unit cell size is also examined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".