Precision requirements for specifying transmitter waveforms used for modelling the off-time electromagnetic response
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to obtain an accurate EM response with modelling software, most people assume that it is necessary to know or specify the excitation current waveform (or its derivative) precisely. A mathematical analysis shows that accurate model results can be obtained during the off time if the amplitude of the waveform is specified precisely in the latter parts of the waveform; however, in the earlier parts of the waveform, the amplitudes can be approximate as long as the area under the waveform is specified accurately. This means that the discretization should be fine in the latter parts of the waveform, but can be coarse in the early parts of the waveform. Coarse sampling of the waveform means that the convolution integrals can be calculated more efficiently. An example shows that the exponential rise and linear ramp assumed by some modelling software to approximate a waveform can give poor results with errors close to 10%. Another approximate waveform that is precise in the final parts of the waveform and has an accurate area under the waveform curve gives errors less than 0.15%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it