MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951725840 · doi:10.1109/icecs.2000.911572

Comparing defect coverage for current-mode logic and CMOS VLSI cells

2002· article· en· W1951725840 on OpenAlexaff
C. Rozon, D. Al-Khalili, Saman Adham, D. Racz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)Royal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMOSVery-large-scale integrationBiCMOSElectronic engineeringLogic gateCurrent-mode logicIntegrated injection logicTransistorComputer scienceElectrical engineeringPass transistor logicEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a comprehensive defect analysis of a 0.8 /spl mu/m BiCMOS fabrication technology. The study involved both current-mode logic (CML) and complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) devices, The analysis is based on defect macro models which are used to perform a comprehensive study for each bipolar and each MOS transistor where both hard and soft defects are present. This detailed study shows that although fault coverage can reach 100% by combining different methods of testing, the defect coverage does not reach this level for logic components.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure AnalysisFrench-language works237,207