MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127555132 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2008.920251

Calculating Mutual Inductance Between Circular Coils With Inclined Axes in Air

2008· article· en· W2127555132 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilInductancePhysicsPlane (geometry)Cross section (physics)Protein filamentSuperconducting CoilsGeometryMechanicsOpticsNuclear magnetic resonanceMaterials scienceMathematicsSuperconducting magnetVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a lucid, easy, and accurate approach for calculation of the mutual inductance between all inclined circular coils with either rectangular cross section or negligible section. We use Grover's formula for the mutual inductance between two filamentary circular coils with inclined axes that lie in the same plane. Their centers are either displaced along the axis of one coil or displaced along one axis of the first coil and then displaced sideways in addition. We apply the filament method for coil combinations comprising circular coils of rectangular cross section, thin wall solenoids, thin disk coils (pancakes), and filamentary circular coils. In this approach we clarify how Grover's formulas have to be used for different coil combinations in the filament treatment. Thus, two well-known methods (Grover's formulas and the filament method) can be easily used to calculate the mutual inductance between all inclined circular coils, even though the problem is purely three-dimensional.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.188 · 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