MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Forcing term discretization techniques in the external field-to-MTL coupling problems

2001· article· en· W2075407496 on OpenAlexaffabout
T. Lapohos, Joe LoVetri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Numerical Modelling Electronic Networks Devices and Fields · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationCoupling (piping)ComputationForcing (mathematics)Transformation (genetics)Time domainPlane (geometry)Frequency domainMathematicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisAlgorithmEngineeringGeometryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, two, under certain conditions, equivalent models of electromagnetic plane wave coupling to multiconductor transmission lines (MTLs) are described. The ‘frequency-to-time domain’ (FTD) model incorporates the effect of the impinging electromagnetic waves by means of distributed voltage and current sources whose expressions are found through mathematical approximations made in the frequency domain followed by a transformation to the time domain. The approximations were made in order to gain an advantage in computation time in the discrete FTD (DFTD) model. In contrast to this approach, the same distributed sources of the ‘approximate analytic’ (AA) model are derived by directly evaluating the corresponding integral formulas. It is shown that, although the same second-order-accurate discretization technique has been employed to create both the DFTD and the discrete AA (DAA) models, the simulation results are not the same. In the case of the DFTD model, significant numerical error can be seen in the simulation results, whereas the DAA model does not show such a behaviour. It is shown that time averaging of the forcing terms in the DFTD model helps to reduce the numerical errors significantly at no extra computational cost. Copyright © 2001 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Numerical Modelling Electronic Networks Devices and FieldsSame topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207