Review of Patch Antennas used in Drone Applications
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
Drones are a form of remote-controlled aircraft that can take to the air without the need for a human pilot. An increasing number of people are looking into using drones for a variety of tasks, including but not limited to operations in hazardous areas, environmental monitoring and sensing, aerial spreading of fertilizer and agricultural chemicals, disaster management and transporting goods from one location to another. Drones are receiving a lot of attention for these and other uses. A drone’s position and navigation can only be controlled by the remote pilot via radio frequency (RF) transmission between the drone and the remote pilot. In order to facilitate two-way communications between the drone and its operator, it is necessary to keep a tight eye on the telemetry data and supplementary sensor data being sent and received by the drone in real time. Unmanned flying would not be conceivable without a flexible and dependable communication system. Due to the necessity of complete spatial coverage for drone communication, the antenna radiating in an isotropic pattern presents itself as a promising option for unmanned flying. Therefore, microstrip patch antenna is an excellent choice for drone applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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