MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014557243 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-39278

Experimental Technique for Sensing Droplet Position in Digital Microfluidic Systems Using Capacitance Measurement

2010· article· en· W2014557243 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather Martin, Miguel Angel Murran, Rachael L’Orsa, Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCapacitanceMicrofluidicsElectrodeCapacitance probePosition (finance)Materials scienceDigital microfluidicsOptoelectronicsElectronic engineeringNanotechnologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capacitance measurement has been identified as an effective technique for droplet position sensing in digital microfluidic systems mainly due to its non-intrusive nature. In essence, this technique relies on the correlation between the capacitance of two top-bottom electrodes with the amount of droplet overlap on the electrode. This paper describes an experimental setup used to gather capacitance data from a set of electrodes with varying droplet overlap to determine the droplet position. A prototype closed digital microfluidic (DMF) system consisting of an array of electrodes in the form of a 2 × 2 matrix was fabricated. A circular droplet was positioned on the DMF system, and capacitance measurements for each of the four electrodes were taken using a fast data acquisition device. A sufficiently accurate approximation of the droplet position was made using the four capacitance measurements. The paper presents the experimental results and also discusses the sources of error, viability of the experimental setup and manufacturing procedure for use in the development of capacitance measurement droplet position sensing techniques.

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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrowetting and Microfluidic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207