MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026614854 · doi:10.1002/mop.21800

Beam‐squint minimization in series‐slotted waveguide array antennas using double negative materials

2006· article· en· W2026614854 on OpenAlexaff
Soon‐Soo Oh, L. Shafai

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrowave and Optical Technology Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)OpticsMicrowaveBeam (structure)WaveguideAntenna (radio)WavelengthMaterials scienceSlotted waveguideTilt (camera)Antenna arrayPhysicsDirectional antennaSlot antennaEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A 5 × 1 series‐slotted waveguide array antenna partly filled with double positive (DPS) and double negative (DNG) materials is investigated. The DNG material has a negative wave vector and its guided‐wavelength equals that of the DPS material. Two simple straight slotted waveguides, one filled only with the DPS material and the other with both DPS and DNG materials, are designed and studied. It is found that the latter waveguide has repeated voltage standing wave shapes. This unique characteristic is utilized to minimize the beam squinting effect in the series‐fed array antennas. It is shown that in a 5 × 1 array using both DPS and DNG materials, the variation in the direction of its beam and boresight gain are limited to 0.5 ° and 0.8 dB, respectively, within a 10% frequency band. In the corresponding conventional array these parameters were 5 ° beam tilt and 3.3 dB boresight gain loss. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 48: 1789–1792, 2006; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/mop.21800

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrowave and Optical Technology LettersSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207