MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144901044 · doi:10.1109/dftvs.1995.476935

Wafer-scale integration defect avoidance tradeoffs between laser links and Omega network switching

2002· article· en· W2144901044 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserInterconnectionLaser power scalingWaferCMOSSIGNAL (programming language)Power (physics)Wafer-scale integrationComputer scienceOptical switchElectronic engineeringMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsOpticsEngineeringPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Area, signal delay, and power consumption requirements are obtained in both 3 micron and 1.5 micron CMOS for two wafer scale defect avoidance methods: laser linking and active switching. In laser linking, focused laser power is used at each site to interconnect and cut bus lines. Active switching elements, such as the Omega network, enable real-time defect bypassing for self healing reconfigurations. Comparisons using simulations and fabricated device measurements of an Omega switch relative to laser links shows the area ranges from 5 to 11 times larger (respectively for the 1.5 and 3 micron processes), it requires an extra 18 to 25 nsec of signal delay and cell drivers to consume 60% more power than the laser links. Laser linked signal paths are so much faster than active switches that they effectively bypass failed switches without introducing significant extra delay. Thus a superior defect avoidance switch combines laser links and the Omega switch into a single unit.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.174 · 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