MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533343927 · doi:10.1109/icupc.1992.240738

Space and frequency diversity measurements of the 1.7 GHz indoor radio channel for wireless personal communications

2003· article· en· W2533343927 on OpenAlexaff
S.R. Todd, M. El-Tanany, S. Mahmoud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and Modeling
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFadingDiversity schemeDiversity combiningAntenna diversityWirelessCooperative diversityDiversity gainComputer scienceDiversity (politics)Channel (broadcasting)Antenna (radio)TelecommunicationsElectronic engineeringStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors empirically evaluate three diversity schemes for indoor wireless personal communications. Measurements at 1.75 GHz, using a four-branch diversity receiver and selection combining (SC), are analyzed to determine the effects of physical parameters, signal fading statistics and a switched combiner on diversity performance. Results are obtained from numerous locations and over 800 measurements. These indicate that antenna separations of as small as a quarter wavelength provide significant diversity gains. For similar performance, frequency diversity requires separations of at least 5 MHz. A 4-branch combination of these schemes (hybrid diversity) yields on average a 16 dB improvement at 99% signal availability. The local mean variations between branches in these measurements is +or-3 dB but this has a negligible effect on average diversity performance using ideal SC. The diversity gains are shown to have a variability of +or-2.5 dB. Switch and stay combining (SAS), a form of SC, is sensitive to the input fading statistics and to switch delay. These variations in diversity performance should be considered for a worst case link design.>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMillimeter-Wave Propagation and ModelingFrench-language works237,207