Methodology and Practical Considerations for the Implementation of the Three-Antenna Method in a Spherical Near-Field Range
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three-antenna method is a way of calculating antenna gain without the need for a gain standard. Unlike the comparison or direct methods, the three-antenna method calculates antenna gain solely from measured data and does not require the gain of any of the antennas to be known in advance. As a result, it’s the most favored method in applications where accuracy is of chief concern, like in calibration measurements. However, implementing this method presents additional challenges related to the equipment required, test procedures, and analysis of the resulting data. In this paper, these challenges are addressed with a new methodology used to create a custom script and user interface within the NSI2000 software environment. The script itself is described with the aid of a flow chart. The validation method involving two test campaigns, using both calibrated and non-calibrated standard gain antennas, is also given. Following these efforts, the three-antenna method was successfully implemented for the first time in a facility that traditionally only used the gain comparison method. The lessons learned from this project could also prove valuable in understanding the practical considerations concerning the implementation and use of the three-antenna method in any other near-field test range.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it