MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806622402 · doi:10.1109/lmwc.2018.2835139

On the Second-Harmonic Null in Design Space of Power Amplifiers

2018· article· en· W2806622402 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Amplifier Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Research ChairsAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsNull (SQL)AmplifierGallium nitrideWaveformHarmonicDegradation (telecommunications)Power (physics)TransistorElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer scienceAcousticsQuantum mechanicsCMOS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter investigates the source of performance degradation and efficiency null that is traditionally observed during second-harmonic load pull of active power transistors. A theory that explains the performance degradation is presented, resulting in a simplified closed-form equation that predicts the location of performance null for different device peripheries and/or design frequencies. Thereafter, the intrinsic drain waveforms for null and maximum efficiency are analyzed to study potential causes for efficiency degradation. The theory is validated using active load-pull measurements of laterally diffused metal-oxide-semiconductor and gallium nitride active devices for different peripheries (0.5-4.8 mm) at various frequencies of operation (2, 2.6, and 3.5 GHz).

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.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.191 · 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