Thermoelastic Damping in Micromechanical Resonators with a Proof Mass and a Network of Suspension Beams
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting thermoelastic damping is crucial for the design of high Q micromechanical resonators. In the past, for microresonators which consist of a proof mass and a network of suspension beams, some experiments showed that Zener's model [Phys. Rev. 52 (1937) 230; Phys. Rev. 53 (1938) 90] and Lifshitz and Roukes' model [Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 5600] can give a reasonable prediction, and others experiments showed that the two models fail to give a reasonable prediction. Few works give a reasonable and detailed explanation for this phenomenon. In this paper, a general proof is presented that shows Lifshitz and Roukes' model is valid for microresonators with a proof mass support by a network of suspension beams if all suspension beams are operated at pure bending vibration and all suspension beams have the same thickness. The accuracy of Lifshitz and Roukes' model is verified by comparing its results with the experimental results available in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it