MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phased Arrays and MIMO: Wideband 5G End Fire Elements on Liquid Crystal Polymer for MIMO

2019· article· en· W3011193521 on OpenAlexaff
Rajveer Singh Brar, Rodney G. Vaughan, Mark Felipe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSierra Wireless (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhased arrayWidebandDipole antennaChassisOmnidirectional antennaElectrical engineeringComputer scienceBandwidth (computing)Antenna arrayElectronic engineeringAntenna (radio)EngineeringAcousticsPhysicsTelecommunicationsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a multiport antenna for mobile communications at a symposium on phased arrays, and consequently it has two parts. Firstly, we review the context of the phased array antenna as a general array and multi-element antennas (MEAs) which are prevalent in mobile communications. There is overlap between phased arrays and MEAs in terms of the basic array principle, but the design approaches and typical applications are different. These differences are reviewed to help fix ideas about the terminology. The second part presents a new array antenna for fifth generation (5G) mobile communications. Its elements are wideband designs for end-fire radiation from the edge of a metallic platform, or chassis. Each element comprises a pair of different sized dipoles in a parallel configuration in order to achieve a wideband impedance bandwidth. The conducting dipoles are supported by a dielectric, which is Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP). This has relatively low dielectric losses at millimeter-wave frequencies, resulting in an antenna radiation efficiency of more than 90% across a 63 % relative bandwidth. The frequency is from 22.8 GHz to 44 GHz which covers the recently- released 5G bands at 24, 28 and 38 GHz. The elements sit on the edges of a rectangular chassis and are directive away from these edges. The end-fire gains are more than 6 dBi. The elements are well-spaced because the electrical size of the chassis is sufficiently large, meaning that the mutual coupling within the basic design is very low, but can be even further decreased using decoupling configurations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
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 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207