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
Abstract Electromagnetic modeling is a critical analysis and design methodology in various fields such as radio‐frequency (RF) and microwave engineering, antennas, radar, remote sensing, medical diagnostics, bio‐electromagnetics, physics and radio astronomy, and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and interference. It formulates and solves electromagnetic field problems using mathematical, physical, or computational models that relate the electromagnetic functionality of devices to their geometrical and material parameters or predict how electromagnetic fields interact with physical objects and materials. This chapter presents the most common methods for modeling electromagnetic scenarios in the frequency, the spectral, and the time domain, as well as their hybrid combinations. They are introduced as projective approximations of field solutions using the method of weighted residuals (MWR). This unified perspective best illustrates their properties, differences, and their suitability for solving a particular electromagnetic problem, thus helping the reader to appreciate the connections, similarities, and differences among the various methods. It also reflects historical and methodological developments and aims to provide a foundational understanding of current electromagnetic modeling methods.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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