MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148776852 · doi:10.1109/tap.2010.2078443

Z-Shaped Dielectric Resonator Antenna for Ultrawideband Applications

2010· article· en· W2148776852 on OpenAlexaff
Tayeb A. Denidni, Zibin Weng, Mahmoud Niroo‐Jazi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDielectric resonator antennaDielectric resonatorGround planeReflection coefficientDielectricBandwidth (computing)OpticsResonatorElectrical impedanceMaterials scienceImpedance matchingAcousticsPhysicsAntenna (radio)OptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new dielectric resonator antenna (DRA) is introduced for ultrawideband applications. Three methods of a Z-shaped dielectric resonator, a bevel feeding patch, and an air gap between the DR and the ground plane are used to obtain an ultrawideband impedance bandwidth. The effective dielectric constant and the -factor can be reduced by introducing the air gap. The bevel-shaped feeding mechanism provides a smooth impedance transition from one resonant mode to another. Furthermore, the results show that by applying a Z-shaped DRA, the electric field inside the dielectric is reformed over the desired bandwidth leading to improve the matching. A comprehensive parametric study is carried out using CST to optimize the bandwidth of the proposed antenna. The measurement results demonstrate that the proposed DRA provides an ultra bandwidth of about 120%, ranging from 2.5 GHz to 10.3 GHz for the reflection coefficient less than .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations58
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207