MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102518521 · doi:10.1109/temc.2009.2023364

Estimation of Antenna Effect on Ultra-Wideband Pulse Shape in Transmission and Reception

2009· article· en· W2102518521 on OpenAlexaff
Karumudi Rambabu, Adrian Eng-Choon Tan, Kevin Chan, M.Y.W. Chia

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPulsed Power Technology Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHorn antennaAcousticsPulse (music)Directional antennaAntenna (radio)Ultra-widebandWidebandOpticsPhysicsElectronic engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsSlot antenna

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an analysis of the antenna effect on ultra-wideband (UWB) pulse shape in transmission and reception. This analysis consists of a derivation of the impulse response for frequently used UWB antennas like the ridged horn, transverse electromagnetic horn, and bicone in the transmitting and receiving modes. An analytical/semianalytical expression for the received pulse has been derived. Frequency-limited gain of the transmitting and receiving antennas has been accounted for in the estimation of the received pulse. To demonstrate the antenna effect on a UWB pulse, various antenna combinations have been considered to transmit and receive different Gaussian pulses. A combination of transmitting and receiving antennas has been proposed for faithful reception of the transmitted pulse. This paper also studies the pulse shape and amplitude due to oblique incidence of the pulse on a receiving antenna. Measurements have been presented to support the proposed analysis, and they show good agreement with the estimated received pulses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic CompatibilitySame topicPulsed Power Technology ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207