MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022019380 · doi:10.1364/oe.19.021540

Refractometric sensing with fluorescent-core microcapillaries

2011· article· en· W2022019380 on OpenAlexafffund
C. P. K. Manchee, Vanessa Zamora, Joshua W. Silverstone, J. G. C. Veinot, A. Meldrum

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRefractive indexMaterials scienceWhispering-gallery waveFluorescenceCapillary actionOpticsOptoelectronicsCore (optical fiber)Quantum dotDetection limitElectric fieldResonatorChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capillaries present a promising structure for microfluidic refractive index sensors. We demonstrate a capillary-type fluorescent core microcavity sensor based on whispering gallery mode (WGM) resonances. The device consists of a microcapillary having a layer of fluorescent silicon quantum dots (QDs) coated on the channel surface. The high effective index of the QD layer confines the electric field near the capillary channel and causes the development of WGM resonances in the fluorescence spectrum. Solutions consisting of sucrose dissolved in water were pumped through the capillary while the fluorescence WGMs were measured with a spectrometer. The device showed a refractometric sensitivity of 9.8 nm/RIU (up to 13.8 nm/RIU for higher solution refractive index) and a maximum detection limit of ~7.2 x 10(-3) RIU. Modeling the field inside the capillary structure, which is analogous to a layered hollow ring resonator, shows that sensitivities as high as 100 nm/RIU and detection limits as low as ~10(-5) RIU may be achievable by optimizing the QD film thickness.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207