MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309540647 · doi:10.1049/iet-map.2015.0437

Ultrawideband monopulse antenna with application as a reflector feed

2016· article· en· W2309540647 on OpenAlexaff
Navid Rezazadeh, L. Shafai

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Microwaves Antennas & Propagation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonopulse radarCassegrain antennaReflector (photography)Periscope antennaAntenna (radio)OpticsAntenna feedParabolic antennaAntenna measurementFan-beam antennaAcousticsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsRadarContinuous-wave radarRadar imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel ultrawideband pattern diversity antenna, with sum and difference radiation patterns used in monopulse tracking, is proposed. To achieve pattern diversity, a crescent‐shaped radiating element is fed from two sides at an angle close to 90°, by two coaxial feeds. The ground is a corner‐shaped cavity. The sum and difference patterns can be obtained by in‐phase and out‐of‐phase excitations of the two coaxial ports. A single‐element antenna is first studied to show the operating principle of the design. A modified design with two elements is then proposed and studied through simulations and measurements of a fabricated prototype, showing excellent radiation characteristics over a large frequency bandwidth. The application of this antenna as a reflector feed is then studied. It is shown that the antenna can theoretically feed a prime focus reflector with 60% (for the sum pattern) efficiency over a 48% fractional bandwidth (5.5–9 GHz), with a maximum efficiency of 75%. The antenna is compact (5 × 4.1 × 2 cm 3 ) and has low cost and simple fabrication. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to feed a reflector with this class of antennas.

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 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 score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Microwaves Antennas & PropagationSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207