MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123139469 · doi:10.1109/wescan.1997.627147

Array near field focusing

2002· article· en· W2123139469 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
TopicAntenna Design and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNear and far fieldFocus (optics)Radiation patternAntenna (radio)OpticsField (mathematics)Antenna arrayPhase (matter)Image resolutionComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antenna arrays are normally characterized in terms of their far field radiation patterns, beam width and directive gain. However, for some applications the array is focused in the near field. The focus size is determined in terms of the near field properties of the array. The focusing is done through adjusting the phase of the elements of the array. The simulations are done using the method of moments (MoM). Two methods for adjusting the phase are compared. The focusing techniques analyzed here have several applications including imaging apertures, for which high spatial resolution is of great importance.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAntenna Design and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207