MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975146344 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2019.2943289

A Dual-Resonator Temperature Sensing Approach With Time Base Error Suppression

2019· article· en· W2975146344 on OpenAlexaff
Onurcan Kaya, Talha Köse, Kıvanç Azgın

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResonatorTuning forkSensitivity (control systems)Materials scienceCalibrationCompensation (psychology)Temperature measurementBase (topology)Electronic engineeringOptoelectronicsAcousticsOpticsVibrationPhysicsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we present a novel dual-resonator temperature sensor which can be embedded in other MEMS sensors for improved thermal compensation and on-the-run calibration. For accurate temperature measurements, the proposed method mitigates time base errors in frequency counting, eliminates the need for a highly accurate reference clock and can cancel out the effects of aging of the time base without using a calibration process. The sensor structure is composed of a strain amplifying beam and two Double Ended Tuning Fork (DETF) resonators with different temperature sensitivities.The DETFs are kept at resonance-simultaneously with a dual PLL circuit. Experiments reveal that at the expense of decreasing sensitivity, one can suppress the measurement errors which can be as high as 0.164 °C for the long resonator and 0.240 °C for the short resonator when a time base of 50 ppm accuracy is used. Moreover, while the frequency stability characteristics of the single sensing elements deteriorate drastically as the accuracy of the time base decreases, the frequency stability of the proposed frequency ratio remains unaffected and it is superior compared to both of the resonators.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207