Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques Society (IEEE MTT-S) International Microwave Symposium (IMS) was held in Montreal, QC, Canada, on June 17-22, 2012, and the conference Chair introduced several exciting ideas to stimulate paper submissions to the conference. First, the conference committee made a determined effort to increase publicity, especially in Asia. Second, and definitely more controversial, they reduced the paper length from the traditional four pages to three pages. The thought behind this was that it would make it easier for authors to write a journal paper based on the conference paper because the conference paper would not contain as much technical information. Thus, the authors would have an easier time meeting the IEEE MTT-S threshold that every paper, whether conference or journal, must present substantially new technical material. There were a record number of submissions to the IEEE MTT-S IMS, and there were a record number of submissions to this TRANSACTIONS' "Special Issue on the 2012 International Microwave Symposium." In fact, there were too many submissions for the reviewers, the Associate Editors, and me to complete all of the papers before the deadline for the December issue. Therefore, I have divided the IEEE MTT-S IMS "Special Issue on the 2012 International Microwave Symposium" into two parts, which will be published in this TRANSACTIONS' December 2012 and January 2013 issues. In the January 2013 Special Issue, the Editor-in-Chief will write a full editorial detailing the number of papers, the acceptance rate, and my opinion on the success or failure of the three-page experiment. In the meantime, please enjoy this Special Issue with 32 papers based on papers presented at the 2012 IEEE MTT-S IMS.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.200 | 0.130 |
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".