MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144830029 · doi:10.1364/josab.27.001016

On the signs of the imaginary parts of the effective permittivity and permeability in metamaterials

2010· article· en· W2144830029 on OpenAlexaff
J. F. Woodley, Mo Mojahedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermittivityMetamaterialPermeability (electromagnetism)DielectricSplit-ring resonatorFinite element methodThe ImaginaryMaterials scienceResonatorPhysicsCondensed matter physicsOpticsMathematical analysisMathematicsOptoelectronicsThermodynamicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The signs of the imaginary parts of the permittivity and permeability in metamaterials such as split ring resonators and strip wires are investigated. It is shown that the Lorentzian model often used to describe the effective parameters (i.e., the permittivity and permeability) of these metamaterials does not physically allow their imaginary parts to be negative. Moreover, a popular technique used to retrieve the effective parameters of a structure from its S-parameters is also investigated. By comparing the effective parameters for an array of dielectric spheres obtained both from S-parameter simulations and analytical calculations, it is shown that an often observed negative imaginary permittivity obtained from the S-parameters is a result of numerical error in the simulations. This is shown both for the finite element method and finite-difference time-domain simulations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America BSame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207