MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Considerations for resonant slot arrays for microwave food drying and heating

2017· article· en· W2765538118 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMicrowave-Assisted Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsSierra Wireless (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlot antennaMicrowaveAntenna (radio)Breakdown voltageElectrical engineeringSlotted waveguideVoltageDirectional antennaComputer sciencePhysicsElectronic engineeringOptoelectronicsEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antennas for microwave heating radiate high levels of power relative to communications and most radar applications. The problem of voltage breakdown becomes a dominant factor in the antenna design. The breakdown problem is compounded when the heating is in a partial vacuum, which can be worse than the full vacuum situation of space-borne antennas. Resonant slot array antennas are ideal for microwave heating because of their variable aperture design and high efficiency except for the slot voltage breakdown problem. This paper presents new design results for antenna array design for microwave heating, based on maximum electric-field considerations. As an example design, a seven-slot waveguide array with a slot width of λ <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">0</sub> /4 is found to be suitable for 1 kilowatt (a typical magnetron), based on a criteria of keeping the electric field below 3% of free-space breakdown.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.218 · 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