MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167514168 · doi:10.1109/ecctd.2009.5275049

A performance comparison of dickson and fibonacci charge pumps

2009· article· en· W2167514168 on OpenAlexaff
Younis Allasasmeh, Stefano Gregori

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Energy Harvesting Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibonacci numberCapacitorVoltageCharge (physics)Charge pumpElectronic circuitCapacitanceElectrical engineeringResistorElectronic engineeringOptoelectronicsComputer sciencePhysicsMaterials scienceTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsEngineeringDiscrete mathematicsElectrodeQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an analysis of two types of integrated charge pumps, Dickson and Fibonacci. The two circuits are compared in slow-switching conditions and at equal area occupation. A formula is developed for optimizing the capacitor sizes and improving the performance of the Fibonacci charge pump. The performance is evaluated with focus on voltage gain and output resistance and including the effects of parasitic capacitances.

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 score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Energy Harvesting TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207