MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066678093 · doi:10.1063/1.4906255

Electrically tunable materials for microwave applications

2015· article· en· W2066678093 on OpenAlexaff
Aftab Ahmed, Irene A. Goldthorpe, Amir K. Khandani

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Reviews · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMicrowaveOptoelectronicsVoltageDielectricDissipation factorBeam steeringFerroelectricityMicrowave applicationsFlexibility (engineering)CeramicElectronic engineeringAntenna (radio)Computer scienceElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave devices based on tunable materials are of vigorous current interest. Typical applications include phase shifters, antenna beam steering, filters, voltage controlled oscillators, matching networks, and tunable power splitters. The objective of this review is to assist in the material selection process for various applications in the microwave regime considering response time, required level of tunability, operating temperature, and loss tangent. The performance of a variety of material types are compared, including ferroelectric ceramics, polymers, and liquid crystals. Particular attention is given to ferroelectric materials as they are the most promising candidates when response time, dielectric loss, and tunability are important. However, polymers and liquid crystals are emerging as potential candidates for a number of new applications, offering mechanical flexibility, lower weight, and lower tuning voltages.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations188
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ReviewsSame topicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric MaterialsFrench-language works237,207