MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415368621 · doi:10.1109/tcpmt.2025.3623562

Low-Cost Foldable Printed RGW Wideband MIMO Antenna With Additively Manufactured Dielectric Resonator

2025· article· W4415368621 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Farouk Nakmouche, Dominic Deslandes, Mourad Nedil, Ghyslain Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWidebandAntenna efficiencyBandwidth (computing)ResonatorDielectric resonator antennaAntenna (radio)Dielectric resonatorDielectricElectrical impedance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work introduces, for the first time, a wideband, low-cost, foldable Printed Ridge Gap Waveguide (PRGW) origami antenna with an additively manufactured dielectric resonator (DR) for multi-input multi-output (MIMO) applications, operating from 12 to 15 GHz. The mechanical foldability is achieved using a surrogate hinge architecture, allowing the antenna to fold nearly 360° without mechanical or electromagnetic (EM) failure, thus enabling beam reconfigurability. Using a multi-permittivity DR based on low-cost polylactic acid (PLA) materials with ϵ<sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>r</i>1</sub> = 2.72 (100% infill) and ϵ<sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>r</i>2</sub> = 1.24 (18% infill), the TE11, TE21, and hybrid mode B are excited, and thus wideband impedance bandwidth is achieved. The proposed compact MIMO antenna achieves high isolation of 40 dB, with a gain of 7.5 dBi at 13.5 GHz and a radiation efficiency of 85%. Experimental validation confirms that the measured results align well with the simulated results over the operating frequency band.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Components Packaging and Manufacturing TechnologySame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207