MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995324187 · doi:10.1109/antem.2010.5552523

Transient-imposed limitations of negative group delay circuits

2010· article· en· W1995324187 on OpenAlexafffund
Miodrag Kandic, Greg E. Bridges

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum optics and atomic interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRLC circuitElectronic circuitTransient responseTransient (computer programming)Operational amplifierResonatorGroup delay and phase delayAmplifierElectronic engineeringLinear circuitBandwidth (computing)RL circuitPhysicsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceEquivalent circuitEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltageTelecommunicationsCapacitorOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the transients in gain compensated negative group delay (NGD) circuits are investigated. The study is conducted on an active unity gain NGD circuit with an RLC resonator integrated in the feedback loop of an operational amplifier. The circuit operates at a center frequency of 454MHz, and it is cascadable. The single stage circuit exhibits a NGD of 1.52ns and a gain of 0.69dB, with a fractional bandwidth of 23%. The circuit transient response to a step-modulated sinusoidal input is measured for a single-stage and two-stage circuits, showing a good agreement with analytical results. The analytical study is extended to general NGD multi-stage circuits based on RLC resonators and shows an exponential relationship between the transient level and the square of achieved NGD. We show that when considering information transfer applications, there is a limit on achievable NGD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuantum optics and atomic interactionsFrench-language works237,207