MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116556237 · doi:10.1109/spl.2010.5483016

The supersmall soft processor

2010· article· en· W2116556237 on OpenAlexaff
James Robinson, Sam Vafaee, Jonathan Scobbie, Michael Ritche, Jonathan Rose

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayEmbedded systemNios IIComponent (thermodynamics)Set (abstract data type)Computer architectureParallel computingComputer hardwareProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soft processors have become an increasingly common component of systems that use Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), and are used to implement a wide variety of control and data processing functionality. Often, some additional functionality needs to be added to a system when there is very little space left on the physical device. This functionality may not be performance critical, and so could be implemented on a slow soft processor. For this reason it may be useful to have a processor that is as small as possible yet similar to other commonly-used processors. This paper describes the design, implementation and release of a 32-bit soft processor based on the MIPS-I instruction set and optimized for minimal use of FPGA resources. The `supersmall' soft processor is as much as 2.2 times smaller than Altera's Nios II/e (the smallest of their 3 processors) yet only a factor of 10 times slower.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207