MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2016316435 · doi:10.1115/imece2013-64079

The Effect of Geometry on Sample Leakage in Multi-Channel Microfluidic Devices

2013· article· en· W2016316435 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Rafie Borujeny, Zhenghe Xu, Neda Nazemifard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrokinetic phenomenaLeakage (economics)MicrofluidicsChannel (broadcasting)Sample (material)FabricationMaterials scienceComputer scienceNanotechnologyChemistryChromatographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrokinetic sheath-flow is one of the techniques used to manipulate sample migration and prevent cross-contamination in multi-channel microfluidic devices. To achieve a successful design, it is important to predict the sample behaviour in advance. We use finite element method to investigate the effect of channel geometry on sample leakage in the presence of electrokinetic sheath-flow. A typical multi-channel device consisting of a main fractionation channel connected to a few collection channels is considered. It has been observed experimentally that the depth of different components of the microfluidic device can change the sample leakage. In-detail investigations are made here in order to find the fundamental cause of the observed behaviour. Simulation results confirmed that by increasing the depth ratio of the collection channels to the main channel the sample leakage would decrease. Simulations are also performed to find criteria for choosing an optimum depth ratio for the channels in terms of both high functionality and ease of fabrication for any specific application.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.213
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications→French-language works237,207→