MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149700389 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.1998.759520

Low power CMOS logic families

2002· article· en· W2149700389 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Adam, M.I. Elmasry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLow-power high-performance VLSI design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdderLogic gateComputer scienceLogic familyPass transistor logicLogic synthesisPower (physics)CMOSElectronic engineeringKey (lock)WirelessResistor–transistor logicLogic levelElectronic circuitElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringDigital electronicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low power design is the key for wireless communication devices and portable computing systems. Many logic families are suggested as candidates for low power design. In this paper we compare four famous logic families as candidates for low power and high performance logic circuits. The comparisons are based on power delay and interference produced. A 16 bit carry look ahead adder is used to compare the performance of the four logic families at different operating conditions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0050.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.164 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLow-power high-performance VLSI designFrench-language works237,207