MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156485317 · doi:10.1109/8.931162

Generalization of the Ludwig-3 definition for linear copolarization and cross polarization

2001· article· en· W2156485317 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectron Spin Resonance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizationAperture (computer memory)Polarization (electrochemistry)Plane (geometry)Field (mathematics)MathematicsAlgorithmComputer sciencePhysicsMathematical analysisGeometryPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a generalization of Ludwig's (1973) third definition that introduces a /spl theta/-dependence that is absent from Ludwig's original definition. Our generalization is based on the nonconformal mapping between the electric field vector lying in the propagation plane (i.e., the probe aperture plane) and the projection of this vector onto the aperture plane (i.e., the AUT aperture plane). We show the error incurred by the two definitions for both the E-field and the H-field aperture models. Ludwig's definition incurs the same level of error for both models while our generalized definition incurs slightly more error for the H-field aperture model but no error for the E-field aperture model.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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