MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103879953 · doi:10.1109/tnano.2004.828527

Split Current Quantum-Dot Cellular Automata—Modeling and Simulation

2004· article· en· W2103879953 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum-Dot Cellular Automata
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotQuantum tunnellingQuantum dot cellular automatonCellular automatonFabricationQuantum cellular automatonNanoelectronicsDiagonalOptoelectronicsQuantumPhysicsNanotechnologyMaterials scienceComputer scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine a novel quantum-dot cellular automata device concept using the interaction of resonant tunneling currents through a system of four quantum wells. The interaction of resonant tunneling currents forces the total current to flow predominantly in the wells along one of the two diagonals, effectively polarizing the cell. We refer to this device concept as split current quantum cellular automata (SCQCA). A free cell will settle to a random diagonal, whereas charge interactions between adjacent cells will cause the polarization to synchronize between cells. In contrast with the standard QCA cell, this device does not require tunneling between dots. Electron tunneling occurs along the vertical direction, where highly controllable deposition techniques are able to deposit very thin films and effectively tune the device parameters. Clocking of an SCQCA cell is performed by controlling the bias across the device, and none of the potential barriers between the dots need to be controlled. We believe this device concept lends itself to fabrication using currently available fabrication technologies.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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