MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096460557 · doi:10.1109/aps.2011.5997017

On the limits of simple array antennas for uncorrelated patterns

2011· article· en· W2096460557 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Dehghani Estarki, Rodney G. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOrthogonalityAntenna (radio)Multipath propagationPhase (matter)IsotropyAntenna arraySimple (philosophy)AlgorithmDegree (music)AmplitudeMathematicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)PhysicsAcousticsGeometryTelecommunicationsOpticsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For analysis, the simplest array comprises two isotropic antenna elements with same amplitude and same phase. A phase shifter in one branch provides the degree of freedom for basic pattern adjustment. We seek orthogonal patterns with respect to the element spacing, d, and the phase shift, δ. Approximate orthogonality (finite, but small correlation coefficient between patterns) is still useful in adaptive antennas in multipath scenarios. We consider the two-dimensional full/half plane space, i.e., θ = π, 2#x03C0;, for which there is a closed form solution. We also look for approximate pattern orthogonality for partial coverage. To treat the integrals of the latter case, we use accurate numerical integration methods with the aid of commercial software. The results for different angle and angular spread of coverage, show that for partial coverage, the broadside direction is more effective (lower pattern correlation) than the same coverage in the endfire direction. Deploying the single degree of freedom (phase shift) in a three (or more) element array allows more complex patterns but brings no extra pattern orthogonality capability.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAntenna Design and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207