MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019433114 · doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.12.014

A novel dynamic pull-in MEMS gyroscope

2011· article· en· W2019433114 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

VenueProcedia Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGyroscopeAccelerometerAccelerationMicroelectromechanical systemsVoltagePhysicsVibrating structure gyroscopeEquivalent circuitNonlinear systemMaterials scienceAcousticsOptoelectronicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper analyzes numerically and experimentally the dependence of the dynamic pull-in voltage amplitude on the values of externally-induced accelerations (e.g. Coriolis accelerations in the case of vibratory gyroscopes). We have investigated the nonlinear dynamic behavior on two different device types, a micro-gyroscope (A) and a micro-accelerometer (B), both fabricated in the SOI-MUMPs process (25 μm thick structural layer). Experimental measurements on the MEMS structures have been performed using Polytec MSA-500 equipment for analyzing the mechanical motion. They indicate that the dynamic pull-in voltages reduce from 100 V to 56 V for device A and from 21.77 V to 17.3 V for device B, for an equivalent acceleration of 0.319 ms-2, when the structures are actuated at their resonance frequency. If the induced acceleration is translated into an equivalent angular rate, _ equivalent, modulating the Coriolisinduced motion, the dynamic pull-in voltages vary from 57.612 V to 56.5 V for device A type and from 20.9 V to 10.75 V for device B type, for a change of 1 rad/s to 5 rad/s in _equivalent.

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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.180 · 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