MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102645319 · doi:10.1109/iscas.1999.777793

User selectable feature support for an embedded processor

2003· article· en· W2102645319 on OpenAlexaff
A. Dyck, S. A. Evenson, Hai Fu, Richard Hobson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Variety (cybernetics)Computer architectureCore (optical fiber)Key (lock)AutomationEmbedded systemArchitectureOperating systemArtificial intelligenceEngineeringProgramming languageTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reusable embedded processors for system-on-a-chip applications should be designed with a set of core features and a set of optional extras. Users can then select from minor variations in the core features, and choose from a possibly wide variety of library supported optional extras. The paper describes key user selectable features along with architecture support and some design automation implications.

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)0.006
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.010

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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207