MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156261165 · doi:10.1109/temc.2006.873861

A Physical Interpretation of the Equal Area Rule

2006· article· en· W2156261165 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHaute école Spécialisée de Suisse OccidentaleUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Surface (topology)Interpretation (philosophy)GridMathematicsMathematical analysisElectric fieldSimple (philosophy)GeometryPhysicsComputer scienceEngineeringQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a derivation and a physical interpretation of the equal area rule (EAR) for wire-grid simulation of surfaces. We propose a new procedure that leads to a formulation for obtaining the radii for an arbitrarily meshed surface. A simple comparison of the classical EAR and the new equal area rule (NEAR) is presented in which the electric field inside a closed metallic surface, which is known to be identical to zero, is calculated using the radii predicted by the two methods. The results show that the proposed new equal area rule predicts a smaller field for the frequency range considered, suggesting an improvement over the classical EAR.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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