MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119989235 · doi:10.1109/aps.1995.530005

A circular mesh scheme for the non-orthogonal finite difference time domain method

2002· article· en· W2119989235 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Y. Chung, Chen Wu, Enrique A. Navarro, J. Litva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntenna (radio)Finite-difference time-domain methodFinite element methodBeam (structure)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsComputer scienceElectronic engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beam forming networks (BFN) are an important component of a complex satellite antenna system because they are used to provide accurate amplitude and phase excitation to the elements of the feed network. The need for handling high power and the need for a high degree of integrability, often leads one to choose square coaxial metal lines for constructing BFNs. BFNs usually require variable power dividers such as the rat-race (or ring) couplers with constant or variable divider ratios in order to deliver a prescribed amount of power to a certain element of an antenna array to steer the beam in a desired direction. However, modeling of such circular structures in square coaxial form is not an easy task. To account for the structure complexity and diversity requires a numerical method with a known flexibility, versatility, and accuracy. In the paper, it is shown that the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method equipped with a circular mesh generator is highly suited to handling these kinds of discontinuities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207