Printed UHF RFID Reader Antennas for Potential Retail Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automation of retail industry is calling for the low cost solution due to its sheer size and varied needs. Printed electronics offers a great potential in addressing the needs in point-of-sales, inventory management and self-service, in particular the radio frequency identification (RFID) systems consisting of the printed components. Screen printed Ultra high frequency (UHF) RFID reader antennas have been investigated in this work for their application potentials in retails for achieving easy-implementation and low cost. The results obtained clearly demonstrated that the screen printed UHF RFID reader antennas are closely matching the performance of their circularly polarized patch antenna counterparts fabricated using the conventional chemical etching method in most critical specifications. The screen printed antennas have been explored for the monitoring of items on metal shelves targeting potential inventory management and point-of-sales applications. It has been found that all tagged items can be identified using a home developed UHF RFID system consisting of the printed antennas. The findings pave the way for the use of low cost printed antennas in the potential retail automation applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".