MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1616312576 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2005.1557268

Fuse-tethers in MEMS: theory and operation

2006· article· en· W1616312576 on OpenAlexafffund
Yu-Shan Chiu, Kwan-Shi Chang, Robert W. Johnstone, M. Parameswaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFuse (electrical)Joule heatingMicroelectromechanical systemsJoule effectFabricationReliability (semiconductor)Joule (programming language)Substrate (aquarium)Materials scienceProcess (computing)Electric heatingMechanical engineeringEngineeringOptoelectronicsComputer scienceElectrical engineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micro-electro-mechanical-systems (MEMS) have designs which incorporate freestanding structures. These freestanding structures must be attached to the substrate during fabrication, and released when they are to be utilized. Tethers are long thin beams that mechanically anchor the freestanding structure to the substrate. In our study, we focused on the fuse-tether design and its associated Joule heating breaking technique. We investigated the breaking characteristics of two fuse-tether designs based on different current pulses. For each design, the current pulse which produced the most desirable break was chosen for more rigorous testing on 20 tethers. The reliability tests resulted in at least 80% success rate. In addition to empirical testing, we utilized ANSYS/spl trade/ to simulate the Joule heating process. The ANSYS/spl trade/ model produced results that closely matched the break characteristics observed in the empirical tests. This research demonstrated that a fuse-tether can be severed reliably with the Joule heating technique, and the outcome can be predicted with proper modeling before fabrication.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207