MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995613452 · doi:10.1049/iet-cdt:20070120

SC Build: a computer-aided design tool for design space exploration of embedded central processing unit cores for field-programmable gate arrays

2008· article· en· W1995613452 on OpenAlexaff
Ian D. L. Anderson, Mohammed Khalid

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Computers & Digital Techniques · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign space explorationComputer scienceGate arrayField-programmable gate arrayField (mathematics)Genetic algorithmComputer Aided DesignDesign toolComputer architectureSpace explorationCore (optical fiber)Space (punctuation)Embedded systemMulti-core processorComputer engineeringComputer hardwareParallel computingEngineeringAerospace engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A genetic algorithm-based design space exploration technique using parameterised cores is examined. A computer-aided design tool called SCBuild was developed which is capable of applying a genetic algorithm to a core's parameters, and generating hardware description language models of core variants. The tool can also compute estimates of a variant's area and critical path delay on a field-programmable gate array. Using this tool, several experiments were conducted using a soft-core processor with a large design space. It was concluded from these experiments that using a genetic algorithm to explore the design space of a parameterised core can help a designer make intelligent decisions regarding the assignment of values to the parameters of an embedded hardware platform.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Computers & Digital TechniquesSame topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207