MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079602279 · doi:10.1364/oe.16.015137

Folded cavity SOI microring sensors for high sensitivity and real time measurement of biomolecular binding

2008· article· en· W2079602279 on OpenAlexaff
Dan‐Xia Xu, A. Densmore, A. Delâge, P. Waldron, R. McKinnon, Siegfried Janz, J. Lapointe, Gregory P. Lopinski, T. Mischki, E. Post, Pavel Cheben, Jens H. Schmid

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular SciencesInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResonatorOpticsStreptavidinSpiral (railway)Resonance (particle physics)WaveguideMaterials scienceSensitivity (control systems)Coupling (piping)Silicon on insulatorQ factorOptofluidicsBiosensorWhispering-gallery waveOptoelectronicsPhysicsBiotinChemistryNanotechnologyMicrofluidics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate folded waveguide ring resonators for biomolecular sensing. We show that extending the ring cavity length increases the resonator quality factor, and thereby enhances the sensor resolution and minimum level of detection, while at the same time relaxing the tolerance on the coupling conditions to provide stable and large resonance contrast. The folded spiral path geometry allows a 1.2 mm long ring waveguide to be enclosed in a 150 microm diameter sensor area. The spiral cavity resonator is used to monitor the streptavidin protein binding with a detection limit of approximately 3 pg/mm(2), or a total mass of approximately 5 fg. The real time measurements are used to analyze the kinetics of biotin-streptavidin binding.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations215
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207