MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810631906 · doi:10.1109/isemc.2018.8393928

Analysis of the accuracy and limitation of contour integral equation modeling of planar structures

2018· article· en· W2810631906 on OpenAlexaff
Kangning Li, Huapeng Zhao, Zhizhang Chen, Jun Hu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Measurements
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPlanarIntegral equationEquivalence (formal languages)Field (mathematics)Methods of contour integrationMathematical analysisMathematicsElectric-field integral equationComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the derivation of contour integral equation (CIE) modeling of planar structures based on field quantities and equivalence principle. It is shown that the CIE derived based on field quantities is essentially the same as the one derived based on voltages and currents. The derivation of CIE based on field quantities provides better understanding of the assumption of CIE, and thus allows easy analysis of the accuracy and limitation of CIE. Simulations are performed to evaluate the validity of the assumptions, and the accuracy of CIE is investigated.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectromagnetic Compatibility and MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207