MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971503597 · doi:10.1002/elps.200700931

Experimental determination of sample stream focusing with fluorescent dye

2008· article· en· W1971503597 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Taylor, G. D. Stubley, Carolyn L. Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFull width at half maximumSample (material)Streamlines, streaklines, and pathlinesGaussianMicrochannelFluorescenceMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)STREAMSOpticsChemistryChromatographyOptoelectronicsComputer scienceNanotechnologyPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to develop an experimental method for determining the focused-sample stream width in microfluidic chips. The focused-sample stream width in the junction of a cross-linked microchannel is determined by the distance between the two streamlines dividing the focusing sheath streams and the sample stream, which should be insensitive to the sample properties. However, the commonly used FWHM intensity method is dependent on the dye properties and cannot be used to estimate the sample focusing effects very accurately. The proposed method is based upon the fact that the cross-stream concentration profile of the sample stream in a region downstream of the junction matches the Gaussian distribution. Therefore, the width of the focused sample stream can be estimated from the channel widths and the variance and maximum concentration of the experimentally measured concentration profile. To validate this method, fluorescein dye has been used to obtain the concentration profile. It has been shown that the proposed method is independent of the fluorescent dye properties. Comparison between the proposed method, FWHM method, and some reported analytical methods also validates the proposed method.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207