Development of a quartz tuning-fork-based force sensor for measurements in the tens of nanoNewton force range during nanomanipulation experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the mechanical properties of nanoscale systems requires new experimental and theoretical tools. In particular, force sensors compatible with nanomechanical testing experiments and with sensitivity in the nN range are required. Here, we report the development and testing of a tuning-fork-based force sensor for in situ nanomanipulation experiments inside a scanning electron microscope. The sensor uses a very simple design for the electronics and it allows the direct and quantitative force measurement in the 1-100 nN force range. The sensor response is initially calibrated against a nN range force standard, as, for example, a calibrated Atomic Force Microscopy cantilever; subsequently, applied force values can be directly derived using only the electric signals generated by the tuning fork. Using a homemade nanomanipulator, the quantitative force sensor has been used to analyze the mechanical deformation of multi-walled carbon nanotube bundles, where we analyzed forces in the 5-40 nN range, measured with an error bar of a few nN.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".