RF Performance Potential of Array-Based Carbon-Nanotube Transistors—Part II: Extrinsic Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive study, which is presented in two parts, is performed to assess the radio-frequency (RF) performance potential of array-based carbon-nanotube field-effect transistors. In Part II, which is presented in this paper, the infrastructure from Part I is utilized to examine more advanced aspects of the RF characteristics. The subversive effects of the extrinsic (parasitic) resistances and capacitances are added to an array-based structure, and the behaviors of key RF figures of merit, such as the extrinsic unity-current-gain frequencyfT, the attainable power gain, and the unity-power-gain frequencyfmax, are examined versus tube pitch and gate-finger layout. The results are compared with those of state-of-the-art high-frequency transistors and to the benchmark determined by the next generation of RF CMOS-as defined by the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors for the year 2015-and they provide an indication of the potential advantages and disadvantages of array-based nanotube transistors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".