MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Opto-Electrical Modeling of CMOS Buried Quad Junction Photodetector

2014· article· en· W2089599673 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Feruglio, Thierry Courcier, Armine Karami, A. Alexandre-Gauthier, Olivier Romain, Vincent Aimez, Paul G. Charette, Patrick Pittet, Guo‐Neng Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueKey engineering materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologiqueUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPhotodetectorSpiceDetectorCMOSOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceNoise (video)p–n junctionComputationOpticsElectronic engineeringPhysicsSemiconductorComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Buried Quad Junction (BQJ) PhotoDetector (PD), composed of four vertically-stacked p-n junctions, has recently been implemented and fabricated in CMOS technology. The detector, providing four different spectral responses, has higher spectral discriminating ability than both conventional Buried Double Junction (BDJ) and Buried Triple Junction (BTJ) detectors. For rapid system design integrating of the BQJ PD, we propose a BQJ SPICE-like model based on the physical properties of the device structure. The analytical expressions of the four BQJ photocurrents have been developed. Dark currents as well as intrinsic noise can also be evaluated by computations. Results have been compared with both TCAD simulations and measurements. Our model shows a good agreement with measurements and the mean relative error on spectral response prediction is between 6 % and 17 % in function of the observed junction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.165 · 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
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKey engineering materialsSame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207