MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130137655 · doi:10.1109/aps.2010.5562277

Limitations of online calibration methods in antenna arrays

2010· article· en· W2130137655 on OpenAlex
Simon Henault, Yahia M. M. Antar

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 institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationComputer scienceAntenna (radio)Electronic engineeringRemote sensingTelecommunicationsEngineeringMathematicsGeographyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various online calibration methods have appeared in the scientific literature for attempting to correct errors in antenna arrays using signals of opportunity. These methods are also known as autocalibration, self-calibration and blind calibration methods, and have the principal advantages of not requiring calibration sources in known locations and to adapt seamlessly to a changing electromagnetic environment. The studies concerning online calibration methods have only considered very favorable scenarios, and it is currently unclear how they would perform in realistic conditions. In this paper, important underlying assumptions in online calibration methods are highlighted to understand their limitations, and three methods used with uniform linear or circular antenna arrays are evaluated.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAntenna Design and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207