MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244938795 · doi:10.1109/dac.2003.1219137

Design of a 17-million gate network processor using a design factory

2004· article· en· W4244938795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G.-E. Descamps, S. Bagalkotkar, S. Ganesan, S. Iyengar, A. Pirson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings 2003. Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37451) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEmbedded Systems Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactory (object-oriented programming)Computer scienceNetwork processorComputer networkProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Silicon Access Networks taped out in one year four high performance SoC products: a high-end Network Processor and three associated Co-processors, providing the industry with the highest performance OC-192 Data Plane Processing solution. The four chips are shipping for revenue and went into production from first silicon with no mask change. They were designed using state-of-the-art 0.13μm technology and collectively represent about 750-million transistors, implementing a variety of analog, digital, high-speed memory and functional blocks. This contribution describes the design of the Packet Processor and some of the key aspects of Silicon Access Networks' design methodology that enabled to accomplish repeatable "first pass silicon" successes, despite system complexity challenges. The 175-million transistor iPP was simultaneously designed in three locations (San Jose/CA, Raleigh/NC, Ottawa/Canada). Bring-up and pre-production showed that first silicon met all its targets: power, speed, yield and complete functionality.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings 2003. Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37451)Same topicEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207