MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543866858 · doi:10.1109/esscirc.2003.1257195

Modified CMOS Cherry-Hooper amplifiers with source follower feedback in 0.35μm technology

2004· article· en· W1543866858 on OpenAlexaff
C.D. Holdenried, Michael W. Lynch, J.W. Haslett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMOSAmplifierElectrical engineeringFully differential amplifierBandwidth (computing)Noise figureTransistorElectronic engineeringDifferential amplifierEngineeringOptoelectronicsPhysicsTelecommunicationsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A CMOS Cherry-Hooper amplifier that is modified to include source follower feedback is described. A small signal model that uses only the most dominant capacitances is used to derive the transfer function of the circuit. The gain is significantly higher than that of the standard MOS Cherry-Hooper stage. Design techniques based on the analysis are suggested for broadband applications. A test circuit, fabricated in a 0.35 /spl mu/m CMOS technology, has 9.4dB gain and 880 MHz bandwidth while consuming 6.0 mA from a 3.3 V supply. Eye diagrams of the test chip at 630 MS/s show good eye opening, giving confidence to the new amplifier's large signal performance. In addition, a six stage main amplifier using the modified Cherry-Hooper stages was fabricated in a 0.18 /spl mu/m CMOS technology. It draws 44mA from a 1.8 V supply. It has 39 dB single-ended gain, 2.1 GHz bandwidth, and 14.2 dB noise figure.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit DesignFrench-language works237,207