MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930167328 · doi:10.1049/iet-cds.2018.5494

Third‐order tunable‐phase asymmetric cross‐coupled oscillator

2019· article· en· W2930167328 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Circuits Devices & Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOscillation (cell signaling)BiasingCorrectnessTransistorPhase (matter)Voltage-controlled oscillatorVackář oscillatorVoltageCMOSControl theory (sociology)PhysicsComputer scienceOptoelectronicsQuantum mechanicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, the authors show that an asymmetric cross‐coupled oscillator can be used to achieve independent‐phase tunable outputs. In particular, a third‐order cross‐coupled oscillator, with non‐balanced loads, is studied and expressions for its start‐up condition, oscillation frequency, phase‐shift between its two outputs as well as their amplitude ratio are derived. From these expressions, it is found that independent tuning of these design specifications is possible and a voltage‐controlled phase‐tunable oscillator can be achieved. As a consequence of the non‐balanced loads, the tail biasing current is not equally split between the two cross‐coupled transistors. However, a design procedure that enables the equal splitting of the current is proposed and validated. Simulations of a prototype in a CMOS process are given and experimental results with discrete transistors verify the correctness of the theory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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