MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

13.2: <i>Invited Paper</i> : LTPS vs Oxide Backplanes for AMOLED Displays: System Design Considerations and Compensation Techniques

2014· article· en· W2066060248 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Chaji, Arokia Nathan

Bibliographic record

VenueSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThin-Film Transistor Technologies
Canadian institutionsIGNIS Innovation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackplaneAMOLEDCompensation (psychology)Materials scienceElectronic engineeringComputer scienceOptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringThin-film transistorEngineeringNanotechnologyActive matrix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The two major backplane technologies for AMOLED displays are LTPS and oxides. Despite their similarities, the differences are significant requiring intricate design considerations and compensation techniques to achieve good display uniformity and lifetime while eliminating second order effects associated with IR drop, ground bouncing, and parasitic capacitance. This paper presents a study in contrasts between LTPS and oxide backplane technologies from the standpoint of system design and compensation techniques.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSID Symposium Digest of Technical PapersSame topicThin-Film Transistor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207