MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048170599 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2012.2232676

Optimal Configuration for Electromagnets and Coils in Magnetic Actuators

2012· article· en· W2048170599 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetActuatorPropulsionComputer scienceInstrumentation (computer programming)Magnetic fieldTorqueMagnetMechanical engineeringControl engineeringPhysicsEngineeringAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the development of medical instrumentation has advanced less invasive therapeutic operations. Micro device navigation through the human body, especially blood vessels, is an important part of minimally invasive techniques. Remote actuation is critical in order to manipulate the micro object inside the body. To achieve remote control within the cardiovascular system, magnetic propulsion offers an advantage over conventional actuation methods eliminating carry-on power supplies. A general magnetic propulsion system is composed of several electromagnets assembled with different orientations and positions. For remote actuation, the magnetic field produced plays an important role in initiating appropriate induction on micro devices. The effect of the electromagnets' arrangement is studied in this paper. Moreover, an optimization criterion is introduced here by which the performance of two effective but different structures is compared. Finally, the optimum structure, which improves actuator efficiency in micro scale applications, is discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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