MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376481272 · doi:10.1109/tap.2023.3274300

Spatially Dispersive Metasurfaces—Part III: Zero-Thickness Modeling of Periodic and Finite Nonuniform Surfaces

2023· article· en· W4376481272 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Dugan, João G. Nizer Rahmeier, T. Smy, Shulabh Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsFloquet theoryHFSSMathematical analysisDispersion (optics)Finite element methodSurface (topology)MathematicsOpticsPhysicsMaterials scienceGeometryMicrostrip antennaQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A zero-thickness model of nonuniform spatially dispersive (SD) metasurfaces is developed and demonstrated numerically for practical structures. This is an extension of Nizer Rahmeier et al. (2022) and Smy et al. (2022), which proposed a method of modeling uniform SD metasurfaces by expressing their surface susceptibilities as rational polynomial functions in the spatial frequency domain. This led to the extended generalized sheet transition conditions (GSTCs) forming a set of differential equations relating the spatial derivatives of both difference and average fields around the surface that were then integrated into an integral equation (IE) solver. Here, the extended GSTCs are further developed to model nonuniform metasurfaces by approximating them as locally linear space-invariant (LSI). Using this model, a semianalytical Floquet method is derived to predict scattered fields from periodically varying metasurfaces. The extended GSTCs, Floquet method, and IE method are tested on several nonuniform surfaces consisting of short metal dipole cells of varying lengths exhibiting strong spatial dispersion. The physical surfaces are simulated in Ansys FEM-HFSS, while their zero-thickness equivalents, both dispersive and nondispersive, are simulated using the Floquet and IE methods. Excellent agreement is shown between the Floquet-SD and IE-GSTC-SD methods and HFSS, demonstrating the importance of spatial dispersion to model their scattered fields.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicMetamaterials and Metasurfaces ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207