MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297901005 · doi:10.1049/tje2.12194

A novel time‐domain numerical methodology for the electromagnetic analysis of an H‐plane tee power divider

2022· article· en· W4297901005 on OpenAlexaff
Homa Arab, Bita Arabsalmanabadi, Steven Dufour

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime domainDiscretizationTransient (computer programming)Finite element methodGalerkin methodDiscontinuous Galerkin methodHFSSNumerical analysisWaveguidePower (physics)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A time‐domain numerical methodology for the transient analysis of multisection waveguide power dividers is proposed. Waveguide power dividers are essential components of microwave systems for high‐power applications. A numerical strategy based on the 3D discontinuous Galerkin time‐domain finite element method is used to estimate the electromagnetic propagation inside a power divider with three ports. The proposed approach leads to simulations that are fast, robust, and accurate, this being the result of a parallel local discretisation of the full‐wave time‐domain Maxwell's equations on unstructured tetrahedral meshes. The stability of the overall numerical scheme is obtained using an upwind numerical flux, an implicit second‐order accurate time integration scheme, and Whitney's edge elements. Good agreements are obtained when the computed results are compared with other HFSS simulation results, and with measurement results found in the literature.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of EngineeringSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207