MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739725956

Simplifying system-on-chip design through architecture and system cad tools

2006· article· en· W2739725956 on OpenAlexafffund
Lesley Shannon

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoGovernment of OntarioIris O'Brien Foundation
KeywordsDatapathReconfigurabilityEmbedded systemComputer architectureApplication-specific integrated circuitField-programmable gate arraySystem on a chipReuseAbstraction layerComputer scienceFPGA prototypeIntegrated circuit designEngineeringSoftwareTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically designers created computing systems by combining Integrated Circuits (ICs) on Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), whereas now they are able to form complete Systems-on-Chip (SoCs). For the purpose of this study, SoCs are defined as a collection of functional units on one chip that interact to perform a desired operation. These modules are typically of a coarse granularity to promote reuse of previously designed Intellectual Property (IP). The decreasing size of process technologies enables designers to implement increasingly complex SoCs using both Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) and Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). The impact of increasing design complexity is increased design time and costs for electronics. Therefore, this research investigates methods to facilitate the design of SoCs through both architecture and CAD tools. This thesis has two main contributions. The first is an architectural framework for SoCs, wherein they are modelled as Systems Integrating Modules with Predefined Physical Links (SIMPPL). The strength of the model is the Computing Element (CE) abstraction that separates the module's datapath from system-level control and communications to facilitate design reuse. Although SIMPPL can be used to build SoCs for ASICs or FPGAs, using an FPGA provides designers with a reprogrammable implementation platform. Thus, our second contribution is to develop a design infrastructure that leverages the advantages of reconfigurability.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicInterconnection Networks and SystemsFrench-language works237,207