MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000197993 · doi:10.1115/icnmm2014-22203

Sensitivity Analysis of the Response of a Gas Sensor in a Microfluidic-Based Gas Analyzer

2014· article· en· W2000197993 on OpenAlexaff
Vahid Ghafarinia, Mina Hoorfar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectrum analyzerSensitivity (control systems)Gas analyzerSIGNAL (programming language)HumidityMaterials scienceResponse timeChannel (broadcasting)MicrofluidicsGas detectorElectronic engineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringDetectorNanotechnologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas sensors have been used as the detection unit of gas analyzers. A low-cost and easy to fabricate gas analyzer can be made by integration a general purpose gas sensor with a microfluidic channel on a polymer substrate. However, ambient fluctuations influence the gas sensor characteristics and operation. In essence, these devices are vulnerable to drift since the interaction of the sensing pallet of the gas sensor with the surrounding air is a temperature- and humidity-dependent process which introduces drift terms to the output signal. These drift terms can also be considered as a controllable input while the sensor itself is considered as a multiple input and output system. In the present study, a methodology based on statistical techniques is introduced to perform the sensitivity analysis and to determine the contribution of each of the input parameters in the output response of the sensor used in a gas analyzer. A regression model is also applied to predict the response of the sensor to the temperature, humidity and the gas concentration values that have not been experimentally tested. Also, the effect of these environmental conditions on the three mentioned factors is studied using design of experiments (DOX) methods.

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)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207