MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138714678 · doi:10.1039/c2lc40670e

Miniaturized platform with on-chip strain sensors for compression testing of arrayed materials

2012· article· en· W2138714678 on OpenAlexaff
Luke A. MacQueen, Oleg Chebotarev, Craig A. Simmons, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceDeflection (physics)ElastomerMembraneComposite materialSiliconeCompression (physics)Microelectromechanical systemsChipStiffnessCarbon nanotubeBiomedical engineeringNanotechnologyEngineeringElectrical engineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a microfabricated mechanical testing platform with on-chip strain sensors for in situ mechanical characterization of arrayed materials. The device is based on deformable elastomeric membranes that are actuated by pressure that is delivered through an underlying channel network. The bulging membranes compress material samples that are confined between the membranes and a rigid top-plate. Carbon nanotube-based strain sensors that exhibit strain-dependent electrical resistivity were integrated within the membranes to provide continuous read-out of membrane deflection amplitude. We used this platform to study the cyclic compression of several different silicone samples and thereby measured their elastic moduli. The results obtained using our miniaturized platform were in excellent agreement with those obtained using a commercially available mechanical testing platform and clearly demonstrated the utility of our platform for the mechanical testing of small samples in parallel. The miniaturized platform can significantly increase mechanical testing efficiency, particularly when testing of iterative sample formulations is required.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and SensorsFrench-language works237,207