MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147080033 · doi:10.1109/tap.2021.3069563

A Floating Octave Bandwidth Cone-Disk Antenna for Detection of Cosmic Dawn

2021· article· en· W3147080033 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation patternBandwidth (computing)Antenna (radio)Antenna measurementDipole antennaOmnidirectional antennaWidebandRadiometer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The critical component of radio astronomy radiometers built to detect redshifted 21 cm signals from Cosmic Dawn is the antenna element. We describe the design and performance of an octave bandwidth cone-disk antenna built to detect this signal in the band 40–90 MHz. The Cosmic Dawn signal is predicted to be wideband spectral feature orders of magnitude weaker than sky and ground radio brightness. Thus, the engineering challenge is to design an antenna at low frequencies, which is able to provide, with high fidelity, the faint cosmological signal, along with the foreground sky, to the receiver. The antenna characteristics must not compromise detection by imprinting any confusing spectral features on the celestial radiation, ground emission, or receiver noise. Innovation in the present design is operating an antenna electrically smaller than half-wave at the highest frequency of operation on the surface of a sufficiently large water body. The homogeneous and high permittivity medium beneath the small cone-disk antenna results in an achromatic beam pattern, high radiation efficiency, and minimum unwanted confusing spectral features. The antenna design was optimized in WIPL-D and FEKO. A prototype was constructed and deployed on a lake to validate its performance with field measurements.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207