MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design of an interface to allow microfluidic electrophoresis chips to drink from the fire hose of the external environment

2001· article· en· W2154883443 on OpenAlexaff
Said Attiya, Abebaw B. Jemere, Thompson Tang, Glen Fitzpatrick, K. Seiler, Nghia Chiem, D. Jed Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsMicralyneUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrokinetic phenomenaMicrofluidicsVolumetric flow rateCapillary electrophoresisAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceFlow (mathematics)ElectrophoresisChemistryChromatographyMechanicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interface design is presented that facilitates automated sample introduction into an electrokinetic microchip, without perturbing the liquids within the microfluidic device. The design utilizes an interface flow channel with a volume flow resistance that is 0.54-4.1 x 10(6) times lower than the volume flow resistance of the electrokinetic fluid manifold used for mixing, reaction, separation, and analysis. A channel, 300 microm deep, 1 mm wide and 15-20 mm long, was etched in glass substrates to create the sample introduction channel (SIC) for a manifold of electrokinetic flow channels in the range of 10-13 microm depth and 36-275 microm width. Volume flow rates of up to 1 mL/min were pumped through the SIC without perturbing the solutions within the electrokinetic channel manifold. Calculations support this observation, suggesting a leakage flow to electroosmotic flow ratio of 0.1:1% in the electrokinetic channels, arising from 66-700 microL/min pressure-driven flow rates in the SIC. Peak heights for capillary electrophoresis separations in the electrokinetic flow manifold showed no dependence on whether the SIC pump was on or off. On-chip mixing, reaction and separation of anti-ovalbumin and ovalbumin could be performed with good quantitative results, independent of the SIC pump operation. Reproducibility of injection performance, estimated from peak height variations, ranged from 1.5-4%, depending upon the device design and the sample composition.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations100
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207