A comparative study on four different transmission lines in LTCC for 60 GHz applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The wireless telecommunication systems have an undeniable role in today's society. The rapid progress of wireless services and applications accelerates demands for high data-rate reliable systems. The 60 GHz band with its 5 GHz globally unlicensed available spectrum, provides a great opportunity for the next generation of high data-rate wireless communication. Despite this attractive bandwidth surrounding 60 GHz, there are still many challenges to be addressed such as the loss performance and the integration with other systems. Low Temperature Cofired Ceramic (LTCC) technology, with its unique and mature multilayer fabrication process, has excellent capability of realizing miniaturized 3D low loss structures to overcome these challenges. Since, one of the key components in any communication system for both interconnecting and designing components is Low loss transmission lines, in this article we overview the performances and challenges for four different most practical transmission lines at 60 GHz in LTCC: Microstrip, Stripline, Coplanar Waveguide (CPW), and LTCC Integrated Waveguide (LIW).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".