MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131898334 · doi:10.1109/fie.1996.567813

Use of "virtual" (simulated) hardware devices in microprocessor laboratories and tutorials

2002· article· en· W2131898334 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael R. Smith, Man Sum Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institute of Steel ConstructionUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsComputer sciencePortingMicroprocessorPowerPCSoftwareEmbedded systemOperating systemSoftware engineeringComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a common problem in industry that the development of software does not go hand-in-hand with the development of the hardware that the software is intended to control. A similar situation can occur in the undergraduate laboratory. Here a student, having designed the software component of a project, can't gain access to the necessary hardware to prepare for or complete a laboratory because of schedule/security difficulties. Over the past year we have overcome this problem by using "virtual" hardware, where device operation is simulated in software. We have generalized the approach so that the virtual devices can be used in conjunction with microprocessor simulator software and with actual evaluation boards for both RISC and CISC systems. We are in the preliminary development stages of a new HTML Web page approach where we control, rather than just launch, these commercial simulation packages. Such an approach would provide a controlled, interactive, tutorial environment for students taking microprocessor courses. There are further industrial and academic advantages of such an approach which can help to overcome the initial learning curve for the tools. We discuss the basics of developing "virtual" devices for use with the Windows based development environment provided with Software Development Systems 68 K and PowerPC free sample kits. These devices can then be ported to the Motorola M68332EVK and Advanced Micro Devices' SA29200 microprocessor evaluation boards to provide actual hardware experience.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207