MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100930586 · doi:10.1109/icc.1997.604941

Experimental characterization of outdoor microcellular quasi-static channels in the UHF and SHF bands

2002· article· en· W2100930586 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Lacroix, Charles Despins, G.Y. Delisle, P. Marinier, P. Luneau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltra high frequencyTransmitterWidebandAmplitudeTransmission (telecommunications)TelecommunicationsRadio propagationAcousticsElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsEngineeringOpticsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to explore design alternatives for point-to-multipoint high rate data transmission systems in various UHF and SHF bands, experimental measurements of radio propagation were made in urban and suburban areas. This paper reports on extensive continuous wave (CW) and wideband measurements performed at four carrier frequencies: 1.44275 GHz, 6.7 GHz, 14.72 GHz and 22.025 GHz. Measurements were carried out in the Montreal metropolitan and suburban areas with both transmitter and receiver stationary. The transmitter was located outside on the rooftop of a high rise building and the receiver inside another building. The receiver was then moved for each new set of measurements such that a whole room was covered in a grid-like fashion. Results from the temporal experiments show, that for the suburban area, the amplitude distributions are lognormal-distributed. The urban area presents more Ricean-distributed amplitude data. The data for the spatially-distributed case also showed that for the suburban and urban areas, the local means of the fluctuations are well described by a Nakagami distribution.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207