MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388145767 · doi:10.1109/ojap.2023.3329356

Electromagnetic Imaging System Calibration With 2-Port Error Models

2023· article· en· W4388145767 on OpenAlexafffund
Seth Cathers, Joe LoVetri, Ian Jeffrey, Colin Gilmore

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCalibrationComputer scienceAnechoic chamberPort (circuit theory)USableScalar (mathematics)Electronic engineeringMathematicsEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calibration is essential in electromagnetic imaging for converting the raw measurements to a usable form for the imaging algorithm. The complexity of the calibration technique can range between a simple comparison of the raw measurement to those of a known calibration target, to a comprehensive simulation of the entire imaging chamber. This work introduces a novel approach to calibration that models the antennas and field propagation as 2-port networks (rather than scalars or a comprehensive model), for which common network theory and de-embedding techniques can be applied. The accuracy of the proposed 2-port method is experimentally tested against the scalar calibration technique on a 2D imaging system. The use of both metallic and dielectric calibration objects is tested, and the inversion performance is compared for the calibration techniques. For the experimental system tested herein, the use of a 2-port model for each transmitter/receive antenna pair moderately improved both calibration accuracy and image quality compared to a simple scalar calibration coefficient, for the cost of measuring a minimum of 2 known calibration targets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Journal of Antennas and PropagationSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207