MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of a Printed Gap Waveguide Antenna at 60 GHz on the Human Body

2024· article· en· W4400044262 on OpenAlexaff
Haitham Hamada, Mohamed Mamdouh M. Ali, Shoukry I. Shams, Ashraf A. M. Khalaf, Abdelmegeed Allam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Engineering Trends · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Body Area Networks
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntenna (radio)Human bodyWaveguideMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millimetre-wave (mm-Wave) bands are becoming increasingly relevant for modern communication standards due to their large bandwidth and enhanced security. This development in communications standards has inspired the emergence of innovative antenna configurations within these bands. Moreover, a growing concern over the possible adverse consequences of mm-Wave frequency exposure on human health motivates investigations into mm-Wave frequency's impacts on the human body. This paper investigates the impact of a Printed Gap Waveguide (PGW) antenna on the hu-man body at 60 GHz. A Magneto-Electric (ME) dipole antenna with broadband operation and identical radiation characteristics in the mm-Wave band is proposed. PGW technology is utilized to implement a ME dipole antenna for studying human body exposure to 60 GHz Electromagnetic (EM) radiation. ME-dipole elements have been developed and examined, and EM exposure is calculated in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The antenna is made up of a cross-shaped ME-dipole that is supported by an Artificial Magnetic Conductor (AMC) side wall cavity. The antenna with the proposed design achieves 23.4% relative impedance bandwidth at 60 GHz over the entire operating frequency range. Simulations were performed to investigate and validate the performance of the structure using Computer Simulation Technology (CST) and a high-frequency structure simulator (ANSYS HFSS). On the basis of the presented results, there is a clear advantage in evaluating the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) according to this state-of-the-art guiding structure and meeting the global standards.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Engineering TrendsSame topicWireless Body Area NetworksFrench-language works237,207