MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161091631 · doi:10.1109/temc.2009.2020297

Mapping of Equivalent Currents on High-Speed Digital Printed Circuit Boards Based on Near-Field Measurements

2009· article· en· W2161091631 on OpenAlexaff
P.-A. Barriere, Jean‐Jacques Laurin, Yves Goussard

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Measurements
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Equivalent circuitElectronic engineeringField (mathematics)Inverse problemPrinted circuit boardComputer scienceElectromagnetic compatibilityAlgorithmInverseElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryVoltageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a method to build equivalent models of radiating printed circuit boards based on complex E-field measurements taken in the close vicinity of the device under test is explored. It is shown that the inverse problem to be solved to retrieve the currents from the field data is ill-posed. An innovative regularization approach implementing a penalty on abrupt spatial variations of the currents is proposed to alleviate this difficulty. Various schemes to mesh the equivalent current distribution are also explored. Combining these with measurements, it is shown that accurate estimation of equivalent current models can be achieved, thereby allowing the identification of the emission sources. The method is tested for different circuit configurations with both synthetic and real data. Obtained results demonstrate the efficiency of the method.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic CompatibilitySame topicElectromagnetic Compatibility and MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207