MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151674152 · doi:10.1109/tcpmt.2012.2232711

High-Performance, Compact Quasi-Elliptic Band Pass Filters for V-Band High Data Rate Radios

2013· article· en· W2151674152 on OpenAlexaff
Rony E. Amaya, Adrian Momciu, Ibrahim Haroun

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Engineering and Waveguides
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsertion lossReturn lossCenter frequencyBand-pass filterDistributed element filterPrototype filterMicrostripBandwidth (computing)m-derived filterMicrowaveFilter (signal processing)PlanarMaterials scienceResonatorWaveguide filterOptoelectronicsElectronic engineeringLow-pass filterElectrical engineeringComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a comparison of the design and implementation of V-band quasi-elliptic band pass filters suitable for system-on-package integration at millimetre-wave frequencies. Filters were designed and manufactured at low-temperature co-fired ceramic (LTCC) and alumina substrates. Filter circuits include the input/output coplanar waveguide to microstrip transitions as well as the microwave pads, used to facilitate measurement. Three four-pole filters incorporating half-wavelength resonators were implemented, two planar (on LTCC and alumina substrates) and one vertically stacked (on LTCC). In addition a six-pole filter was also implemented in alumina. The four-pole LTCC based filters have a measured insertion loss (IL) as low as 3.4 dB, fractional bandwidth (FBW(%) = BW-3 dB/Center Frequency) of 4.8% and return loss better than 10 dB. Total filter size is less than 1.1 × 0.74 mm. The alumina-based four-pole/six-pole filters exhibit a measured IL of 2.8/3.1 dB, FBW of 8.3%/12.6%, respectively. Both alumina filters exhibit a return loss better than 10 dB and with a corresponding filter layout footprint of less than 1.01 × 1.34 mm. A new figure-of-merit (HPFOM) is proposed and results from the filters proposed here clearly show they offer the best trade-off between performance and area (higher HPFOM).

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing TechnologySame topicMicrowave Engineering and WaveguidesFrench-language works237,207