MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069497622 · doi:10.1039/c2lc40513j

Cruise control for segmented flow

2012· article· en· W2069497622 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Abolhasani, Mayank K. Singh, Eugenia Kumacheva, Axel Günther

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCruise controlFlow (mathematics)Control (management)AeronauticsFlow control (data)CruiseMarine engineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysicsMechanicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capitalizing on the benefits of microscale segmented flows, e.g., enhanced mixing and reduced sample dispersion, so far requires specialist training and accommodating a few experimental inconveniences. For instance, microscale gas-liquid flows in many current setups take at least 10 min to stabilize and iterative manual adjustments are needed to achieve or maintain desired mixing or residence times. Here, we report a cruise control strategy that overcomes these limitations and allows microscale gas-liquid (bubble) and liquid-liquid (droplet) flow conditions to be rapidly "adjusted" and maintained. Using this strategy we consistently establish bubble and droplet flows with dispersed phase (plug) velocities of 5-300 mm s(-1), plug lengths of 0.6-5 mm and continuous phase (slug) lengths of 0.5-3 mm. The mixing times (1-5 s), mass transfer times (33-250 ms) and residence times (3-300 s) can therefore be directly imposed by dynamically controlling the supply of the dispersed and the continuous liquids either from external pumps or from local pressurized reservoirs. In the latter case, no chip-external pumps, liquid-perfused tubes or valves are necessary while unwanted dead volumes are significantly reduced.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207