Three-Dimensional Electrokinetic Focusing in a Planar Microstructure
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
Hydrodynamic focusing is commonly employed to reduce the cross-sectional area of a microfluidic sample stream. Two-dimensional focusing is achieved by combining a central sample stream with a buffer sheathing flow on adjacent sides of a standard microfluidic cross chip. This method of on-chip hydrodynamic focusing is the most common, perhaps due to the relative ease and popularity of planar microfluidic chip fabrication methods. The application of two-dimensional focusing to on-chip flow cytometry is limited for two reasons: Firstly, the degree of focusing obtained is limited by the microchannel depth. Secondly, many biological analytes adhere to channel walls mitigating the optical measurements. Three-dimensional focusing can both increase the focus intensity, and minimize interaction between the analyte stream and the channel walls in the viewed region. In this work, a new method is presented for obtaining three-dimensional hydrodynamic focusing on a planar microfluidic geometry using strategically placed surface charge patches. Numerical simulations are employed to show the concentration profiles resulting from the local flow circulations induced by the surface patches in an electrokinetically-driven flow.
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