MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997071098 · doi:10.1002/adma.200601818

Rapid Prototyping in Copper Substrates for Digital Microfluidics

2006· article· en· W1997071098 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofluidicsPhotolithographyRapid prototypingMaterials scienceDigital microfluidicsNanotechnologyPrinted circuit boardElectrodeOptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringElectrowettingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two rapid prototyping techniques for digital microfluidics (see figure) are presented. In the first method, actuation electrodes are patterned on printed circuit board substrates by using photolithography. In the second technique, actuation electrodes are patterned directly onto substrates using a desktop laser printer. These techniques reduce the time, complexity, and cost required to produce devices, which makes this technology accessible to any research lab.

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.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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