MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131647037 · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2008.2008504

Synthesis of Distributed Phase-Locked Oscillators

2008· article· en· W2131647037 on OpenAlexaff
Mauricio Yañez, John C. Cartledge

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular Papers · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Fiber Laser Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformDistributed amplifierControl theory (sociology)Delay line oscillatorInjection lockingOscillation (cell signaling)WidebandVackář oscillatorImpulse (physics)Computer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Electronic engineeringAmplifierPhase noiseLocal oscillatorPhysicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsVoltageBandwidth (computing)Operational amplifierLaserOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a type of distributed oscillator which combines the functions of distributed amplifiers (DAs), distributed transversal filters (DTFs), and distributed mixers (DMs). Nonlinear feedback of the kind used in mode-locked laser (MLL) systems is used in order to obtain phase locking between the resonant frequencies within the oscillator. The theory of operation is given and a tuning procedure for the tap weights of the distributed oscillator aimed at achieving a desired state of oscillation is presented. The impact that the nonideal components of the oscillator have on its performance is discussed. Through simulation it is shown that the effects of transmission line loss, uneven tap weight spacing and terminal impedance mismatch can be mitigated by properly adjusting the tap weights of the oscillator. Examples of waveform synthesis are given in which different periodic waveforms are produced by the oscillator including those found in an MLL and a waveform suitable for impulse based ultra-wideband systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular PapersSame topicAdvanced Fiber Laser TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207