On the Characteristics of the Highly Directive Resonant Cavity Antenna Having Metal Strip Grating Superstrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various resonant cavity antennas (RCAs) having different metal strip gratings (MSGs) as their superstrates are studied in terms of their directivity and scanning properties using transverse equivalent network (TEN) model in conjunction with the periodic method of moments (MoM). It is shown that radiation patterns in E- and H-planes coincide over a wide angle range in RCAs when their MSG superstrates are free-standing and highly reflective, as reported in the previous literature. However, using less reflective MSG or employing dielectric support in the MSG superstrate degrades the equality of E- and H-plane radiation patterns. Moreover, as the scan angle increases, radiation patterns in E- and H-planes become noticeably different. It is elucidated that this is due to the angular dependence of the reflection coefficient phase of the MSG superstrates. A comparative study is also performed on a few different RCAs based on both simulation and measurement results. It is illustrated that in practice when the excitation source of the RCA is a probe-fed microstrip antenna and the RCA is finite in size, cross-polarization increases considerably as opposed to the RCAs having ideal sources and, infinite ground plane and MSG superstrate in the transverse direction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".