MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803024029 · doi:10.1109/tap.2018.2829822

Far-Field Magnification of Subdiffraction Conducting Features Using Metamaterial-Lined Aperture Arrays

2018· article· en· W2803024029 on OpenAlexafffund
Elham Baladi, Ashwin K. Iyer

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesCMC Microsystems
KeywordsAperture (computer memory)MetamaterialOpticsAntiresonanceNear and far fieldWavelengthResonance (particle physics)ResonatorPhysicsMaterials scienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers a new approach for far-field high-resolution imaging of conducting obstacles based on arrays of frequency-multiplexed subwavelength resonant elements. Each resonator is a circular aperture in a metallic screen that is strongly miniaturized by means of loading by a thin epsilon-negative and near-zero metamaterial (MTM) liner. Each MTM-lined aperture exhibits a fano-shape transmission profile, i.e., a peak followed by a minimum, and the resonance frequencies of different apertures are chosen such that the resonance of one lies within/very close to the antiresonance of the other to ensure strong decoupling. This paper shows that blocking an aperture using a conducting disc removes the corresponding resonance peak/minimum from the transmission/far-field amplitude spectrum, enabling far-field detection of any distribution of such obstacles with a spatial resolution determined by the aperture sizes, which measure less than one-sixth of free-space wavelength at their respective resonance frequencies. The proposed imaging mechanism is verified through full-wave HFSS simulations as well as far-field measurements. Some challenges associated with this approach are then discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207