Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An analysis is presented of mutually inductive coupling in probe design. It is assumed that near field couplings predominate and that lumped constants may therefore be employed. Using three published designs as examples, analytic techniques are presented for assessing B 1 field strength, losses, and signal‐to‐noise ratio in increasingly complex situations. The perturbing effect of the B 1 field from a matching coil is examined and it is shown that if the coil is too close to the sample there can be an asymmetry introduced in the rotating frame B 1 field. It is then shown that such asymmetries are potentially a general feature of inductively coupled, loaded coils. The importance of suppressing unwanted resonances is highlighted if tuning and matching are to be orthogonal, a potential advantage of mutually inductive matching. Finally, a lumped‐constant simulation is briefly described for those situations where an analytic approach becomes too cumbersome. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Concepts in Magnetic Resonance (Magn Reson Engineering) 15: 262–285, 2002
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it