Field characterization of an air surveillance radar at near-ground locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When using computational electromagnetics (CEM) for performance analysis of radar and high-gain microwave antennas, the necessary detailed specifications and computer-aided design (CAD) drawings of these systems are seldom readily available from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). A reasonable estimate of the electromagnetic (EM) field levels radiated by these types of antennas may be computed using a simple 2D aperture model. This technique, known as the aperture field method, assumes that an EM field distribution is produced on an aperture immediately in front of the radiating area of the antenna. Such was the approach employed in this paper to characterize the electric field (E-field) intensity of a deployable air surveillance radar (ASR) at near-ground locations that were directly illuminated by the cosecant-squared fan beam of the radar. Of concern in this study was that the radar might cause EM interference (EMI) issues at near-ground locations within a few kilometer radius from the radar, due to its high radiated power. Hence, this study served as part of a comprehensive radio frequency (RF) safety and EMI assessment of the ASR, based on guidelines for compatibility and safety standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".