Improved performance millimetre‐wave antenna array by using artificial materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A millimetre‐wave (MMW) 4 × 2‐element antenna array integrated with a soft surface structure is presented. The proposed antenna is alternatively interpreted as an array of overlapped eared‐aperture‐coupled‐patch‐antenna, fed by strip‐line feed‐network through a low loss and wideband strip‐line‐to‐grounded‐coplanar‐waveguide transition. It is shown that, compared to a 4 × 4‐element conventional planar array with a given aperture size, eight radiating elements are required to achieve an almost same directivity/gain by utilising the soft surface structure between elements of the array. By reducing the number of excited elements with this method, the feed‐network is simplified. Furthermore, being more noticeable in the E‐plane, where soft surface structure is used, the side lobe level is improved in both E‐ and H‐planes. Enhancements of matching and directivity/gain bandwidths are other advantages achieved with the proposed approach. In addition, it is feasible to use the proposed soft‐surface structure in developing larger antenna array packages that can be integrated with other parts of a radio frequency circuitry by using MMW interconnection technologies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".