MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-Powered Memory Systems

2020· article· en· W3100504110 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

VenueACS Materials Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromorphic engineeringComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceIn-Memory ProcessingApplications of artificial intelligencePower consumptionComputer architecturePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence memory is expected to acquire, calculate, and analyze a large amount of logical information and data in time to dynamically respond to artificial neural networks. It is the most promising candidate for realizing a new hardware artificial intelligence architecture that mimics biological neural networks. However, the research on artificial intelligence memory is still in the initial stage, and there are some unresolved bottlenecks for the preparation of artificial intelligence memory devices. Such as it require external power supplements for the operating of memory devices, resulting in high power consumption and difficulty in real-time neuromorphic computing. Fortunately, self-powered memory devices can perfectly solve the above problems. In this Review, we have systemically summarized the current development on material, integration, and technology for the self-powered memory application, as well as provide the prospect, suggestion, and optimization method for neuromorphic computing and artificial intelligence with self-powered memory.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.180 · 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