MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507739440 · doi:10.1109/map.2016.2594699

Angle of Incidence Effects in Reflectarray Antenna Design: Making gain increases possible by including incidence angle effects

2016· article· en· W2507739440 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 Antennas and Propagation Magazine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Antenna and Metasurface Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Angle of incidence (optics)OpticsAntenna (radio)WavelengthMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of whether or not it is necessary to include a feed field incidence angle in the design of main reflectarrays and subreflectarrays is discussed quantitatively in this article. The performance of reflectarray designs done with and without such incidence angle effects included are compared. The additional gain is achieved if the incidence angle is indeed included in the design process. The immunity of subwavelength elements to incidence angle effects is confirmed and illustrated using individual element patterns. Subreflectarrays designed with such subwavelength elements are shown to exhibit superior performance compared to those using half-wavelength ones.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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