MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SiC High Power Devices – Challenges for Assembly and Thermal Management

2013· article· en· W2044434837 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Friedrichs, Reinhold Bayerer

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsInfineon Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicon carbidePower moduleElectronicsPower (physics)Power electronicsPower semiconductor deviceMaterials scienceSiliconPower densityElectrical engineeringChipEngineering physicsElectronic engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringOptoelectronicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon carbide power devices are intended and to enter new application regimes in power electronics, in fact, they are enabling components mainly if higher switching frequencies in power electronics are considered. This trend can be clearly observed since power density can be increased and efforts towards passive components and other mechanical contributions to the system can be reduced. However, this trend imposes new challenges towards the surrounding of the chips in form of the package itself and the whole system around. Stray components like inductances and impedance elements become crucial elements in the whole circuit what results in the fact that a simple exchange of silicon chips by silicon carbide in a given package can be ruled out. In addition different considerations regarding the thermal design especially in power modules arise when SiC chips are considered, triggered by the fact that the cost balance between assembly and chip is shifted compared to silicon based solutions. Thus, different optimization criteria can be used, leading to new design approaches for power modules. The following paper will give a first inside how those boundary conditions can be implemented in innovative solutions using SiC 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207