MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031681295 · doi:10.1021/ja002687t

Fabrication of Topologically Complex Three-Dimensional Microstructures:  Metallic Microknots

2000· article· en· W2031681295 on OpenAlexaff
Hongkai Wu, Scott Brittain, Janelle R. Anderson, Bartosz A. Grzybowski, Sue Whitesides, George M. Whitesides

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials and Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)TemplateMicrostructureSurface (topology)CylinderMicrocontact printingMetalWeldingGeometryTorusChemistryComposite materialNanotechnologyMaterials scienceCrystallographyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a method for fabricating three-dimensional (3D) microstructures with complex topologies trefoil, figure eight, and cinquefoil knots, a chain with complex links, Borromean rings, a Möbius strip, and a torus. This method is based on the strategy of decomposing these structures into figures that can be printed on the surfaces of cylinders and planes that contact one another. Any knot can be considered as a pattern of crossings of lines, in which one line crosses “over” or “under” the second. We map these “over” and “under” crossings onto the surface of a cylinder and show that only two cylinders, in tangential contact (with axes parallel) and with lines allowed to cross from the surface of one to the surface of the second, are required to make any knot (or, in a combinatorial mathematical sense, any graph) in a topography that consists only of smooth curves. To form free-standing metal microstructures, we begin by printing appropriate patterns onto a continuous metal film on two cylinders using microcontact printing: these patterns are developed into patterns of exposed metal by etching or by covering with polymer. The cylinders are aligned (using a new procedure) with a slight separation between them. The metallic patterns on them are used as cathodes for electrodeposition, which strengthens the metal features and also welds them into a continuous structure. When electrodeposition and welding are complete, the cylindrical templates are dissolved, and the topologically complex, 3D, free-standing metallic structures are released.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicAdvanced Materials and MechanicsFrench-language works237,207