Impact of elevation angle variations in wideband adcock direction finders subject to mutual coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes how variations in elevation angle of incoming signals can affect the accuracy of Adcock direction finders (ADFs) in estimating the azimuth direction of arrival (DOA). In accordance with Adve and Sarkar [2000], Maxwellpsilas equations are solved to calculate the mutual coupling characterizing a typical ADF. The voltages at the antenna elements are calculated under several plane-wave excitations that vary both in azimuth and elevation, and processed following two different ADF techniques. The first technique, the Adcock Watson-Watt direction finder (AWWDF), is based on the processing of relative amplitude measurements, while the second technique, the Adcock Butler matrix direction finder (ABMDF), is based on the processing of relative phase measurements. The DOA estimates obtained using the two techniques are finally compared and the possibility of applying a correction to the raw estimates in order to improve the accuracy is evaluated. Contrary to the theory of operation of ADFs, it is found that the elevation angle has an impact on DOA estimation accuracy due to mutual coupling..
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".