MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073778545 · doi:10.1109/tnb.2012.2186460

On-Chip Molecular Communication: Analysis and Design

2012· article· en· W2073778545 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Communication and Nanonetworks
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular communicationTransmitterComputer scienceTransmission (telecommunications)Information transferToolboxElectronic engineeringChipSet (abstract data type)TelecommunicationsEngineeringChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a confined space molecular communication system, where molecules or information carrying particles are used to transfer information on a microfluidic chip. Considering that information-carrying particles can follow two main propagation schemes: passive transport, and active transport, it is not clear which achieves a better information transmission rate. Motivated by this problem, we compare and analyze both propagation schemes by deriving a set of analytical and mathematical tools to measure the achievable information rates of the on-chip molecular communication systems employing passive to active transport. We also use this toolbox to optimize design parameters such as the shape of the transmission area, to increase the information rate. Furthermore, the effect of separation distance between the transmitter and the receiver on information rate is examined under both propagation schemes, and a guidepost to design an optimal molecular communication setup and protocol is presented.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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