MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898995049 · doi:10.1109/emcsi.2018.8495365

Development and Evaluation of Waveforms for EMI Radiated Susceptibility Testing of Avionic Systems

2018· article· en· W2898995049 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Blanchette, Joey R. Bray, Yahia M. M. Antar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEMIElectromagnetic interferenceAvionicsWaveformElectromagnetic compatibilityAnechoic chamberElectronic engineeringBandwidth (computing)Computer scienceConducted electromagnetic interferenceEngineeringElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsAerospace engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommended waveforms used for electromagnetic interference (EMI) susceptibility testing of military avionic systems date to 1967, and are not representative of modern telecommunication standards: characteristics such as the bandwidth and the peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) are not emulated. Although more recent studies have evaluated the use of filtered white Gaussian noise for susceptibility testing, and compared the effects of the PAPR on EMI susceptibility, the results were inconclusive. This paper proposes a parameter reduction process for the development of candidate waveforms that are representative of long term evolution (LTE) communication signals. The waveforms were evaluated by comparing the measured EMI response of avionic equipment that was exposed to the waveforms in an anechoic chamber. The measured data was analyzed to determine whether the bandwidth and the PAPR had significant effects on the measured EMI compared to real LTE signals. The proposed method can be used to evaluate the suitability of test waveforms for other communication standards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207