MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135772535 · doi:10.1049/cds2.12048

Low‐power multi‐band injection‐locked wireless receiver in 0.13  <i>μ</i> m CMOS

2021· article· en· W3135772535 on OpenAlexaff
Jared Mercier, Yushi Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Circuits Devices & Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvelope detectorFrequency-shift keyingCMOSElectrical engineeringInjection lockingLocal oscillatorAmplifierDemodulationElectronic engineeringTransistorRadio receiver designEngineeringVoltage-controlled oscillatorNoise figureTransmitterPhase noisePhysicsChannel (broadcasting)Voltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The design and analysis of a low‐power multi‐band injection‐locked wireless receiver, implemented in complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) 130 nm technology, for wireless sensor network (WSN) applications are presented. The proposed receiver composed of an injection‐locked oscillator (ILO), low‐noise amplifier (LNA), and an envelope detector utilizes non‐coherent detection based on the frequency‐to‐amplitude conversion property of the injection‐locking phenomena. A lock range enhancement method is proposed through analytically and numerically determining the optimum biasing point of the injection transistor. The lock range of divide‐by‐4 super‐harmonic injection‐locking dictated by the third‐order non‐linear coefficient of the injection transistor is first investigated. The receiver applies divide‐by‐4, divide‐by‐2, and fundamental injection to demodulate the frequency‐shift‐key (FSK) and ON/OFF‐key (OOK) modulated signals from 433, 860–868, 902–928, 950–956, and 2360–2400 MHz frequency bands while keeping the power consumption in sub‐mW range. Post‐layout simulation results demonstrate that the proposed design achieves a maximum data rate of 5 Mbps for both FSK and OOK signals. With two modes of operation (high‐band and low‐band), the receiver consumes 762 and 675 μ W of static power from a 0.7 V supply, achieving a sensitivity of −77 and −70 dBm at BER of 2 × 10 −3 . The FOMs for each mode are 152 and 135 pJ/b, respectively.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Circuits Devices & SystemsSame topicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit DesignFrench-language works237,207