MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766980646 · doi:10.1109/autest.2017.8080505

Built-in-test for integrating analog-to-digital converters that utilize a phase-sensitive detector

2017· article· en· W2766980646 on OpenAlexaff
Vadim Geurkov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvertersDetectorAnalog deviceElectronic engineeringAnalogue electronicsRedundancy (engineering)Digital electronicsComputer hardwareAnalog multiplierElectronic circuitAnalog signalDigital signal processingEngineeringElectrical engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating analog-to-digital converters that utilize a phase-sensitive detector (PSADCs) are frequently used in high precision instrumentation and measurement systems. As any technical object, a PSADC is subject to faults. These faults must be detected promptly and accurately by built-in low complexity hardware. In the present work, this objective is achieved by the adoption of error-control codes. Off-line and on-line test methods are explored. We demonstrate how to perform compaction in digital and analog domains. We design a compactor of analog signals on the basis of a PSADC and explain how to utilize coding redundancy for on-line testing. We also explain how to use a PSADC for generating multiple residues which can further be processed by a computing device operating in a residue number system (RNS). Compared to existing techniques, the proposed approach is characterized by higher accuracy and lower latency. The proposed device can be used for analog circuits testing in much the same way as a conventional signature analyzer is used for digital circuits testing. The test process involves measuring signatures of analog signals, which ultimately appear in digital form. The signatures are then verified to make a pass/fail decision.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207