MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887090061 · doi:10.1109/mnano.2018.2845078

Building Brain-Inspired Computing Systems: Examining the Role of Nanoscale Devices

2018· article· en· W2887090061 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. R. Nandakumar, Shruti Kulkarni, Anakha V Babu, Bipin Rajendran

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Nanotechnology Magazine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCisco SystemsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceRealization (probability)Variety (cybernetics)State (computer science)MemristorDistributed computingProcess (computing)Parallelism (grammar)Reservoir computingComputer architectureArtificial intelligenceElectronic engineeringArtificial neural networkParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain-inspired computing is attracting considerable attention because of its potential to solve a wide variety of data-intensive problems that are difficult for even state-of-the-art supercomputers to tackle. The ability of the human brain to process visual and audio inputs in real time and make complex logical decisions by consuming a mere 20 W makes it the most power-efficient computational engine known to man. While state-of-the-art digital complimentary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) technology permits the realization of individual devices and circuits that mimic the dynamics of neurons and synapses in the brain, emulating the immense parallelism and event-driven computational architecture in systems with comparable complexity and power budget as the brain, and in real time, remains a formidable challenge.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Nanotechnology MagazineSame topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207