Tether and joint design for microcomponents used in microassembly of 3D microstructures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A novel microassembly system has been developed to assemble surface micromachined micro-parts, into 3D microstructures. This work describes the tether and joint design of micro-parts used in the microassembly process. The process consists of (a) grasping a micro-part which is tethered to the substrate of a chip, (b) removing the micro-part from the substrate by breaking the tethers, (c) manipulating the micro-part from its original location of fabrication to the target assembly location, and (d) joining the micro-part to another micro-part. In this way, out-of-plane or in-plane microstructures can be assembled from a set of initially planar micro-parts. The tether design is an integral part of the grasping and removal process. The tethers provide restraint on the micro-parts while they are grasped by a passive, compliant microgripper, and are designed to break-away at pre-defined locations, after the grasping process. In addition, the tethers ensure that the micro-parts do not translate or rotate from their fabricated and released positions, during transportation of the carrier chip. The joint system used to join micro-parts together is called "snap-lock’ microassembly. It is based on the elastic deflection of a plug feature that forms an interference fit with a mating slot feature.
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 | 0.000 | 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".