MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An overview of latest advancements in displaced phase centre antenna (DPCA) techniques

2013· article· en· W2045760943 on OpenAlexaff
Z. Allahgholi Pour, L. Shafai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntenna (radio)Radiation patternPhase (matter)Phase centerComputer scienceAperture (computer memory)Synthetic aperture radarAntenna apertureElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsRemote sensingAcousticsEngineeringPhysicsGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In certain applications, such as radars, remote sensing, and precise global positioning systems, the phase reference of the radio frequency (RF) system is of great importance as it affects the system accuracy, such that even small uncertainty could lead to big errors. In wireless communications, this phase reference is dominated by the antennas, the last components of the RF front-end parts, which radiate the Electromagnetic waves. Thus, knowledge of the antenna phase reference, well known as the phase centre, is vital in aforementioned applications. The phase centre location of an antenna is the effective source of radiation providing a uniform phase pattern at the far-field zone over a finite angular range in space, which is normally around the main beam. Therefore, any phase centre displacement will move the phase reference of the communication system. Particularly, in moving target indicator radars, where the antenna part is mounted on a moving platform, the forward motion of the moving platform changes the effective phase centre location of the operating antenna. This could result in errors as significant as missing low velocity objects. One of the techniques to overcome this problem is the displaced phase centre antenna (DPCA) processing technique [M. I. Skolnik, Radar Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 1990]. Traditionally, DPCA technique exploits two or more identical aperture antennas, which provide separate phase centre locations with identical secondary radiation patterns. This will, however, increase the hardware and complexity of the antenna systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Compatibility and MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207