MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969226800 · doi:10.1116/1.2013311

Silver coplanar waveguides as the passive components of choice for microwave integrated circuits

2005· article· en· W1969226800 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing Measurement and Phenomena · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCopper Interconnects and Reliability
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoplanar waveguideMonolithic microwave integrated circuitMicrowaveMaterials scienceElectromigrationResistive touchscreenOptoelectronicsFabricationElectronic circuitElectrical engineeringElectronic componentBroadbandIntegrated circuitElectronic engineeringCMOSTelecommunicationsComputer scienceEngineeringComposite materialAmplifier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High quality broadband passive components are needed for MMIC/MIC in silicon. Coplanar waveguides (CPW) provide an effective way to implement passives in microwave ICs. Silver “fat” wires in the back end interconnects, used for CPW fabrication, will reduce the bulk resistive loss in metallization to the lowest possible level, which is vital to minimize noise. Electromigration, electrochemical migration, and agglomeration issues are not a problem for silver microwave passive components, because of their coarse dimensions and the low current densities encountered in these structures. In this work Ag and Cu CPWs were designed, fabricated, and tested. Silver CPWs showed a 2–3Ω∕cm improvement in resistance over copper devices at 20GHz.

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 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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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