MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110855351 · doi:10.1109/aps.2005.1551263

Analysis of coaxial-fed electromagnetically coupled patch antenna using FDTD

2005· article· en· W2110855351 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodAcousticsPatch antennaAntenna (radio)Electrical impedanceTransmission lineCoaxialMicrostrip antennaCoaxial antennaAntenna tunerComputer scienceElectronic engineeringPhysicsOpticsElectrical engineeringEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coaxial feed modeling has been a challenge in numerical simulation for a long time. Various modeling techniques, such as gap modeling, magnetic frill modeling and transmission line modeling have been applied successfully for specific applications. We challenge the same problem for an electromagnetically coupled patch antenna (EMCP). It has been shown that the mechanism of operation is the excitation of two modes which have almost the same resonance frequency (Zucher, J.-F., "Broadband Patch Antenna", Artech House, 1995; Hajiaboli, A. et al., ANTEM2004). Because of this complicated behavior, the general modeling may need modification or refinement. We present results of mesh refinement applied to our previous antenna model (Hajiaboli et al., 2004). Considering the increase in the simulation time, the changes obtained in the input impedance have been discussed.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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