MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139377192 · doi:10.2528/pierm09060105

VALIDITY CHECK OF MUTUAL INDUCTANCE FORMULAS FOR CIRCULAR FILAMENTS WITH LATERAL AND ANGULAR MISALIGNMENTS

2009· article· en· W2139377192 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

VenueProgress In Electromagnetics Research M · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInductanceConfusionPhysicsVector potentialMagnetic potentialMathematical analysisMathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)Magnetic fieldCombinatoricsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we derived the formula for calculating the mutual inductance between circular fllaments with lateral and angular misalignment by using the approach of the magnetic vector potential. The results obtained correspond to those of F. W. Grover, although the latter used the general formula given by the Neumann integral instead of a vector potential approach. However, the major purpose of this paper is to clarify some confusion introduced in previous works regarding the mutual inductance calculation between thin fllamentary circular coils with parallel axes in air. This problem has been solved by Kim etal. (8) using the magnetic vector potential, but unfortunately it leads to erroneous results, even for slight misalignments of the coils' center axes. This is why we chose to use the approach of the magnetic vector potential to show that, when properly derived, the results must indeed reduce to the well known F. W. Grover's formulas.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.318 · 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