MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048656016 · doi:10.1088/0240-8978/13/4/040201

Special issue on optical tweezers

2011· article· en· W2048656016 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

VenueJournal of Optics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical tweezersBiophotonicsNanotechnologyTrappingOptical powerWork (physics)Optical physicsLaserPhysicsOpticsMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical micromanipulation had come a long way since the seminal work ofArthur Ashkin in the 1970s and 1980s [1, 2]. The pioneering work in these twodecades demonstrated a rather remarkable result, the ability to exert a force on amicroscopic particle using only light. Whilst the forces involved may be small, ofthe order of a few pico-Newtons, this was shown to be enough to stably trap andmanipulate micro-sized dielectric particles and biological cells.Nowadays, with the increased availability of equipment and the reliability ofhigh-power lasers, optical trapping and optical manipulation techniques havebecome commonplace in scientific institutions worldwide. It is, in fact, commonto see optical traps built as undergraduate projects teaching the physics behind theprinciple.Whilst the fundamental science of optical trapping and micromanipulationremains an active field of research in itself, the true success is in its use in diverseareas of science and medicine where it has enabled quantitative studies of a varietyof very interesting phenomena. For example, biologists use optical trapping toidentify diseased cells, chemists use optical trapping to measure surface propertiesand physicists use optical trapping to investigate the interaction between light andmaterials. Recognising that light can modify materials, probe surface properties,and exert forces on a microscopic scale, allows scientists from many disciplines toinvestigate how microscopic effects impact on the macroscopic world.This special issue represents recent work from the diverse range of fields inwhich optical manipulation has made a successful impact. There is work on thelatest developments in interactive control, precision measurements,nano-fabrication and micro-patterning, microfluidics and biophotonics. Many ofthe papers published in this issue are authored by researchers of the current COST(European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action on OpticalMicro-Manipulation by Nonlinear Nanophotonics. Many of the research articleshave resulted from collaborations and active discussions resulting from recentmeetings and conferences of the Action.As new techniques, tools and resources for optical trapping are continuouslybeing developed and finding a way into interdisciplinary research, the future ofthe field looks bright.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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