MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035687334 · doi:10.1103/physreve.71.066605

Left-handed and right-handed metamaterials composed of split ring resonators and strip wires

2005· article· en· W2035687334 on OpenAlexaff
J. F. Woodley, Mark S. Wheeler, Mo Mojahedi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassbandMetamaterialMaterials scienceSplit-ring resonatorResonatorOpticsPermittivityRefractive indexNegative refractionStopbandPhase (matter)DielectricCondensed matter physicsPhysicsOptoelectronicsBand-pass filter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behavior of two structures composed of split ring resonators (SRRs) and strip wires (SWs) is examined through full wave simulations. It is shown that both structures exhibit a transmission peak in the region where the real parts of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are presumed to be negative, a property which is usually assumed to imply a negative index of refraction. However, an analysis of the dispersion characteristics and insertion phase of the two structures shows that the first structure, in which the SRRs and SWs are printed on opposite sides of a dielectric substrate, is a left-handed medium in the passband, whereas the second structure, in which SRRs and SWs are printed on the same side, is a right-handed medium in the passband. Hence the transmission magnitude alone does not provide sufficient evidence of a negative index of refraction. To determine the sign of the index correctly, the insertion phase for propagation through several lengths of the structure or calculations of dispersion diagrams are necessary. The impact of the unit cell size on the "handedness" of the structure 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 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)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207