MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Energy Harvesting Receiver Utilizing Microstrip Filter Technology for IoT devices in 5G Network

2022· article· en· W4308091060 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Eshaghi, Rashid Rashidzadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChebyshev filterRectifier (neural networks)Band-pass filterRectennaFilter (signal processing)Electronic engineeringLow-pass filterElectrical engineeringAntenna (radio)Energy (signal processing)Computer scienceMicrostripButterworth filterEnergy harvestingHigh-pass filterTopology (electrical circuits)PhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy scavenging from radiofrequency waves is getting more attention to energize low-power IoT sensors as the fifth-generation (5G) of wireless technology becomes mainstream. To efficiently extract energy from electromagnetic waves, the receiver antenna has to be properly matched with a rectifier to provide a steady dc output. A common solution is to design a matched bandpass filter with lumped LC components. However, in high frequencies using a conventional LC filter is not practical due to parasitic effects. In this paper, a 3rdorder Chebyshev bandpass filter and a 5thorder Elliptic function microstrip lowpass filter have been designed using Advance Design System (ADS). RO4003C material with a dielectric constant of 3.55 and height of 0.508 mm is utilized for the substrate. The Chebyshev filter shows perfect matching at 12-17 GHz. The Elliptic filter shapes the output of the rectifier, and the energy harvester provides 25 mW output with input power of -10 dBm and overall efficiency of 86%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Harvesting in Wireless NetworksFrench-language works237,207