MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075403461 · doi:10.1063/1.2937177

Continuous current and surface potential models for undoped and lightly doped double-gate metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors

2008· article· en· W2075403461 on OpenAlexaff
Hamdy Abd Elhamid, M. Jamal Deen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-effect transistorMaterials scienceTransistorCondensed matter physicsDopingSaturation (graph theory)CapacitanceSemiconductorFermi levelSurface statesOptoelectronicsElectronComputational physicsVoltagePhysicsSurface (topology)Electrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have introduced a continuous, explicit, surface potential model for symmetric undoped and lightly doped double gate metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor devices. The surface potential model considered both hole and electron quasi-Fermi potential effects. An explicit current model has been introduced in terms of both source and drain charge densities at which hole and electron quasi-Fermi level or IMREFs are defined. The introduced models are directly related to the device biasing and device structure without the need for fitting parameters. Both of the surface potential and current models are continuous from below to above threshold and from linear to saturation of operation regimes. Good agreement has been obtained when our analytical models are compared to numerical results. The effects of hole IMREF on the small-signal (or ac) parameters are also reported. We predicted that the presence of holes has raised the saturation voltage. Also, we have observed from the gate capacitance curve that the hole IMREF should be taken into our account for low frequency applications.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207