Analysis of different defect configurations in CEBG structures for directive patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromagnetic bang gap (EBG) materials are periodic structures characterized by forbidden propagation of electromagnetic waves in their band-gap and by the ability to open localized modes inside the band-gap by introducing defects. Cylindrical electromagnetic band gap (CEBG) structures are radially and circularly periodic, and they present pass-band and stop-band to cylindrical electromagnetic waves. By applying a horn-shaped defect in these structures, it has been shown that a re-configurable directive pattern can be obtained. In (P. Ratasjack et al., 2004), experimental results for a reconfigurable CEBG-based antenna have been presented, whereas in (H. Boutayeb et al., 2006), an analysis of the transmission coefficient of CEBG structures and experimental results for a CEBG directive antenna have been proposed. In (H. Boutayeb et al., 2006), a new defect configuration has been proposed for reducing the power supply, but this solution leads to a narrower band. In this paper, new defect configurations are analyzed in order to reduce the number of active elements and the required power supply in CEBG-based agile antennas. The solution with the widest bandwidth is indicated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".