MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002205076 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2012.2194279

Characterization of Disturbances in Systems of Coupled Micro-Resonator Arrays

2012· article· en· W2002205076 on OpenAlexafffund
M.S. Hajhashemi, Behraad Bahreyni

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsResonatorSensitivity (control systems)Coupling coefficient of resonatorsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsCoupling (piping)CantileverAcousticsControl theory (sociology)Q factorPhysicsElectronic engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer scienceOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a method for processing signals from an array of coupled resonators to detect perturbations due to external stimuli. This method is based on simultaneous monitoring of the relative changes in all eigenvalues of the characteristic equation and processing this information to quantify the amount of perturbations and to determine the resonators whose properties have changed. Since the method is based on the relative movements of eigenvalues, the variations in the absolute values of the eigenfrequencies do not strongly affect its accuracy. It will be shown that this technique is capable of detecting perturbations even if direct signals from some of the coupled resonators are not available. The role of coupling strength on the sensitivity of the system is also discussed. It is shown that it is possible to increase the sensitivity of the sensor system to perturbations by a large factor through proper selection of the coupling coefficient between the resonators. The proposed model is experimentally verified using an array of coupled micro-cantilever resonators fabricated in a standard micro-fabrication process.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207