MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548180610 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726602

Total ionizing dose test facilities for micro-electronic circuits

2016· article· en· W2548180610 on OpenAlexaffabout
Haibin Wang, R. Liu, X.-T. Li, Li Chen, David M. Hiemstra, Valeri Kirischian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiation Effects in Electronics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIonizing radiationAbsorbed doseElectronicsElectronic circuitAmplifierDose rateMedical physicsDosimetryReliability engineeringComputer scienceNuclear medicineEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsIrradiationNuclear physicsMedicineCMOS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the total ionizing dose test facility available at the University of Saskatchewan. Two Co-60 sources are available one for high and the other low dose rate radiation effects testing of electronics. The total ionizing dose performance of an operation amplifier was evaluated. The testing results compare well with previously published results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
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 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Effects in ElectronicsFrench-language works237,207