MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082773136 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.2009.5236138

Injection-locked CMOS active transformer voltage-controlled oscillators

2009· article· en· W2082773136 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Yuan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhase noiseVoltage-controlled oscillatordBcCMOSElectrical engineeringTransformerFrequency offsetOffset (computer science)VoltageFrequency dividerLC circuitElectronic engineeringPhase-locked loopEngineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceCapacitor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents injection-locked CMOS active transformer voltage-controlled oscillators. The tunable coupling ratio, large and tunable self and mutual inductances, high and tunable quality factors, and a small silicon area consumption of CMOS active transformers allow the oscillators to have a large frequency tuning range with low silicon consumption. The injection-locking mechanism ensures that the phase noise of the oscillators is comparable to that of corresponding LC tank oscillators. The proposed oscillators can be used to construct frequency dividers of high-frequency frequency synthesizers where the oscillators are typically LC-tanks based. One active transformer VCO, three injection-locked active transformer VCOs, and one LC-tank VCO that oscillate at the same frequency have been designed in TSMC-0.18 mum 1.8 V CMOS technology and analyzed using SpectreRF from Cadence Design Systems with BSIM3v3 device models. Simulation results show that the phase noise of active transformer VCO without injection-locking is approximately -92 dBc/Hz at 1 MHz frequency offset. The phase noise of injection-locked active transformer VCOs is approximately -119 dBc/Hz while that of passive LC tank oscillator is -121 dBc/Hz at 1 MHz frequency offset.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit DesignFrench-language works237,207