MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990676180 · doi:10.1142/s0218126610006803

A SYSTEMATIC COMPUTER-AIDED APPROACH TO LOW-NOISE AMPLIFIER DESIGN

2010· article· en· W1990676180 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 Circuits Systems and Computers · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityCOM DEV International
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic engineeringLow-noise amplifierAmplifierComputer scienceNoise figureComputer Aided DesignNoise (video)CADCMOSEmphasis (telecommunications)Integrated circuit designCircuit designElectronic circuitElectrical engineeringEngineeringTelecommunicationsEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-noise amplifiers (LNAs) are critical to a wide variety of electronic circuits. In the design phase preceding fabrication, an LNA needs to be designed for a given set of specifications (e.g., gain, noise-figure, power consumption, etc.), which tend to be application-dependent. Typically, LNA design using commercial computer-aided design (CAD) tools can be human-intensive and requires a certain degree of expertise. This paper presents a systematic multi-phase CAD approach for the design of LNAs. In the first phase, a quick pre-analysis of the given LNA specifications is carried out leading to the selection of an appropriate LNA topology. In the second phase, an initial design of the LNA is generated employing an appropriate design procedure. Finally, the initial design is adjusted/fine-tuned so as to meet/exceed the given specifications, where necessary. The advantages of the proposed approach are shown through several practical LNA design examples in 0.18 μm CMOS technology.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · 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