Design and Experimental Validation of a Piezoelectric Resonant MEMS Phase Comparator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the design, concept and experimental validation of the performances of a piezoelectric resonant microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) phase comparator is presented. Compared to traditional integrated circuits, the potential benefits of a MEMS phase comparator include a low power consumption, higher sensitivity, higher selectivity and improved robustness. The design and experimental validation of a resonant MEMS phase comparator are presented along with characterization recommendations. The operation of this resonant MEMS phase comparator is experimentally validated over the first five eigen modes at 108 kHz, 298.7 kHz, 583.3 kHz, 962.8 kHz and 1.4375 MHz. Calibration of the resonant MEMS phase comparator is presented, allowing for simple device operation, which is validated under various waveform stimulations: sinusoidal, square, and triangular. This work is expected to lead to the development of new applications for MEMS resonating devices. [2024-0037]
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".