MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246126451 · doi:10.1109/isscc.2019.8662449

ISSCC 2019 Session 5 Overview: Image Sensors

2019· article· en· W4246126451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kazuko Nishimura, Jun Deguchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage sensorShutterRolling shutterComputer scienceVideo Graphics ArrayPixelCMOSSession (web analytics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This session presents advances in image sensors covering 3D-stacked BSI, global shutter, motion/object detection, novel-column ADC architecture, coded exposure, data-compressive imaging, vertical APD, high dynamic range, SPAD, LiDAR and THz imaging.The first paper by SmartSens presents a BSI global shutter with 99% shutter efficiency.This is followed by the University of Michigan who present a low-power image sensor with energy efficient SAR ADCs for IoT applications.Stanford University presents a 127pJ/pixel image sensor for HOG-based object detection.A VGA CMOS image sensor with time-stretched single-slope ADCs is presented by Yonsei University, while the University of Toronto presents a 2tap coded-exposure image sensor with a tap contrast ratio of 99% at 180fps.Panasonic presents a CMOS image sensor with vertical avalanche photodiodes (VAPDs) with "relaxation-quenching".The University of Edinburgh presents a stacked SPAD array for LiDAR applications.Finally, Hokkaido University presents a THz image sensor with pixel-parallel ADCs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1290.129

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207