MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247847556 · doi:10.1109/mmm.2012.2226628

LDMOS Modeling

2013· article· en· W4247847556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Szhau Lai, Christian Fager, Dan Kuylenstierna, Iltcho Angelov

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Microwave Magazine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVINNOVA
KeywordsLDMOSIntermodulationTransistorTransistor modelPower (physics)Power semiconductor deviceElectrical engineeringEngineeringMicrowaveRF power amplifierField-effect transistorElectronic engineeringTelecommunicationsPhysicsVoltageAmplifier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the detailed efforts of the winning contribution of the first student competition in microwave transistor modeling, held at the 2012 International Microwave Symposium (IMS2012) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The competition was sponsored by MTT-1, Freescale Semiconductor Inc., and WIN Semiconductor Inc. The transistor modeled was a commercially available high-power device from Freescale, and the characterization data required for modeling was distributed to all competitors. No measurements were to be carried out by the participants, so all students world wide, even those without expensive transistor characterization equipment, could participate. The main objectives of the competition were to identify the technology and develop a nonlinear model from the provided measurement data set [e.g., cold field effect transistor (FET) measurements, pulsed IV, IV versus temperature, S parameter versus bias, and pulsed S-parameter measurements]. The developed model was also to be validated versus large signal one- and two-tone measurements. The validation data was in the form of output power and power added efficiency (PAE) versus input power and measured at two different conditions, e.g., input/output terminations for maximum efficiency and maximum output power, respectively. An accurate model should be able to predict the large signal measurements across the full range of input power levels and bias points available. The judgment of the modeling result was based on the agreement between model simulation and measurement in terms of output power, efficiency, and third-order intermodulation (IM3) versus input power, several of which were not provided to the competitors.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.016

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Microwave MagazineSame topicRadio Frequency Integrated Circuit DesignFrench-language works237,207