MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147099349 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277679

A 27 GHZ Phase-Lock Loop Phase Detector

2006· article· en· W2147099349 on OpenAlexafffund
John P. Carr, Brian Frank

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in PLL and VCO Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsPhase-locked loopPhase detectorCMOSJitterDetectorPhase frequency detectorPhase noiseElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringVoltage-controlled oscillatorFrequency dividerClock recoveryComputer scienceVoltageEngineeringCharge pumpClock signalCapacitor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will present an investigation into the phase detector of a 27 GHz phase-lock loop (PLL) clock multiplier using a 0.18 - mum CMOS process. The phase detector is one part of a multi-faceted project involving the development and verification of the various components composing the phase-lock loop. A low multiplication factor has been selected that provides a benefit in the multiplicative phase noise contribution, requiring a high-speed frequency divider and phase detector. The challenges of developing stable, low-jitter clock sources become greater as the operating frequency is increased. With the integration of digital and analog circuits CMOS technologies are a preferred solution because of their documented high-frequency performance and well-established manufacturing base. A study of the non-ideal performance (i.e., non-90deg phase offset for a 0 V control voltage output in the phase detector) has been undertaken; the offset may be lessened with an increase in the local oscillator switching core gate-source voltage. Simulated and measured results for a Gilbert cell phase detector realized in the TSMC 0.18-mum CMOS process and operating at 6.75 GHz are presented

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 score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvancements in PLL and VCO TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207