MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131985504 · doi:10.1109/iceaa.2012.6328755

New opportunities in electromagnetics with nanotechnologies

2012· article· en· W2131985504 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitrios L. Sounas, Louis‐Philippe Carignan, Christophe Caloz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagneticsComputational electromagneticsComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering physicsPhysicsElectromagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetics is a mature field which is ubiquitous in everyday life. All communication systems rely, to a certain extent, on electromagnetic devices such as antennas and waveguides. Furthermore, the ever increasing demand for high capacity and small size systems calls for novel avenues for miniaturization and integration. Conventional electromagnetic devices suffer from a fundamental tradeoff between size and functionality, originating from the fact that the interaction between all classical materials and electromagnetic waves reduces as their size decreases. Therefore, new materials immune of these fundamental drawbacks must be explored. Nanotechnology, the study of materials and structures with at least one of dimension in the order of the nanometer [1], offers a potential solution. Conceptualized for the first time in 1956 by Richard Feynman in his famous talk “There's plenty of room at the bottom” [2], nanotechnology can now routinely produce nanomaterials with controlled structural and functional parameters in the nano or even atomic scale. Some of these nanomaterials are not only able to strongly interact with electromagnetic waves, despite their dimensions being much smaller than the wavelength, but they also exhibit totally new phenomena, not found in conventional materials. Here, we provide three illustrative examples from our recent work on nanoelectromagnetics, which show how the combination of electromagnetics and nanotechnology can lead to devices with unprecedented characteristics.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207