MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388536225 · doi:10.1049/tje2.12302

Electromagnetic analysis of moving structures in a moving reference frame

2023· article· en· W4388536225 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisCégep de l'Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodObserver (physics)Doppler effectPhysicsElectromagnetic radiationRotating reference frameReference frameMoving frameFrame of referenceMicrowaveDiscretizationPlane waveFrame (networking)Plane (geometry)AcousticsClassical mechanicsOpticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisGeometryMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, the finite‐difference time‐domain (FDTD) method is employed to study electromagnetic problems with moving bodies in a moving system. The proposed approach consists in modeling objects with time‐varying positions and using the direct discretization of Maxwell's equations in space and time domains. Doppler effects are investigated for problems with moving observer, source, or reflector, in a moving frame. A distinction is also made between a high‐impedance or low‐impedance plane wave source in motion. The full‐wave electromagnetic simulations are compared with closed‐form equations that agree with wave theory. The proposed analysis shows that, for Doppler radars used every day, the motion of the Earth relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background has a negligible effect and only relative motions in the Earth frame are relevant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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