MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristic Basis Function Method for the Analysis of Composite Objects Embedded in Layered Media

2018· article· en· W2909419533 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Su, R. Mittra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpedance parametersLossy compressionBasis functionBasis (linear algebra)Matrix (chemical analysis)Block matrixElectrical impedanceMathematicsFunction (biology)Method of moments (probability theory)Computer scienceBoundary (topology)Boundary value problemComposite numberAlgorithmMathematical analysisGeometryArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPhysicsMaterials scienceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the Poggio-Miller-Chang-Harrington-Wu-Tsai Equations associated with the Mixed Potential Integral Equations (PMCHWT-MPIE) are used to analyze objects comprising of lossy composite materials embedded in layered media, and the Discrete Complex Image Method (DCIM) is used to generate the Dyadic Green's Functions. Compared to the MOM analysis based on the Impedance Boundary Condition (IBC), the PMCHWT-based analysis is more robust when dealing with highly lossy objects embedded in layered media. We choose the Characteristic Basis Functions Method (CBFM) for this problem because it is iteration-free and, hence, is suitable for dealing with multiple RHS efficiently. Yet another reason for this choice is that the GPU can be used to accelerate the filling process of the submatrices of the impedance matrix when generating the Characteristic Basis Functions (CBFs).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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 Scattering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207