MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062342554 · doi:10.1002/elps.200900447

Numerical studies of electrokinetic control of DNA concentration in a closed‐end microchannel

2010· article· en· W2062342554 on OpenAlexaff
Yasaman Daghighi, Dongqing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrokinetic phenomenaMicrochannelMicrofluidicsElectrophoresisElectric fieldAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryElectro-osmosisFlow (mathematics)ElectrodeMechanicsMaterials scienceChromatographyNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major challenge in lab-on-a-chip devices is how to concentrate sample molecules from a dilute solution, which is critical to the effectiveness and the detection limit of on-chip bio-chemical reactions. A numerical study of sample concentration control by electrokinetic microfluidic means in a closed-end microchannel is presented in this paper. The present method provides a simple and efficient way of concentration control by using electrokinetic trapping of a charged species of interest, controlling liquid flow and separating different sample molecules in the microchannel. The electrokinetic-concentration process and the controlled transport of the sample molecules are numerically studied. In this system, in addition to the electroosmotic flow and the electrophoresis, the closed-end of the chamber causes velocity variation at both ends of the channel and induces a pressure gradient and the associated fluid movement in the channel. The combined effects determine the final concentration field of the sample molecules. The influences of a number of parameters such as the channel dimensions, electrode size and the applied electric field are investigated.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207