MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062265867 · doi:10.1109/tim.2014.2340641

Mechanism and Experiment of Planar Electrode Sensors in Water Pollutant Measurement

2014· article· en· W2062265867 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao-lei Wang, Yuhao Wang, Henry Leung, Subhas Chandra Mukhopadhyay, Tian Mao, Junle Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMinistry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPlanarElectrodeElectrical impedanceMaterials scienceEquivalent circuitDielectric spectroscopySensitivity (control systems)OptoelectronicsAcousticsVoltageElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringChemistryComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the detecting mechanism of planar electrode sensor in water pollutant detection. A system composed of electrodes, bulk media, and electrode-solution interface is built up, and the corresponding equivalent circuit containing bulk and interfacial impedances is established. The influence of each part is discussed while the impedance at interface is especially focused on. The impedance spectroscopy of the circuit is divided into three parts by the cutoff frequencies caused by interfacial and bulk impedances, and each of the frequency range can be used for the measurement of different physical quantities in water. The effect of electrode, especially the combination of interdigital and coils, is analyzed, and nine different sensors were designed and fabricated. Experiments validate the accuracy and validity of the model, and the sensor with best sensitivity is found. The stability of the planar sensor is proven in the experiment too.

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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and MeasurementSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207