Comparative study of the effects of dosimetric E-field sensor size on the detected field intensity, at 5.2 GHz and 5.8 GHz
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical and experimental characterizations of the dosimetric E-field probe sensor size has been performed at 5.2 GHz and 5.8 GHz. Also investigated is the, 2.8mm and 4.9mm tip-diameter probes which have been designed and validated against international regulations' and standards. Numerical characterizations show that smaller probe-sensors have lower sensitivity than longer probe-sensors. Lab measurement results show that both of the fabricated probes (3mm and 4.9mm diameter) yield SAR values in line with the FDTD (finite-difference-time-domain) derived target SAR values within +/-5%. When the probe is in immediate proximity of the phantom boundary, probe positioning uncertainty becomes a major factor. Probe positioning uncertainty, as well as boundary effect, can be reduced by keeping this distance to at least 0.6mm from the probe tip. Since the difference in SAR between the two probes is less than 13%, we conclude that the 4.9mm and 2.8mm probes are both equally suitable to be used for dosimetric assessment in the 5.2–5.8 GHz frequency range.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".