MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160400252 · doi:10.1109/icmens.2004.1509034

Assessment of the Effect of Micro-Fabrication Uncertainties on the Sensitivity of Gas Sensors Using 3-D Finite Element Modeling

2006· article· en· W2160400252 on OpenAlexafffund
K. Sadek, Walied A. Moussa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Parametric statisticsFabricationSurface micromachiningFinite element methodElectronic engineeringThermalProcess (computing)Computer scienceProcess variationMaterials scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uncertainties introduced during some stages of the micro-fabrication process can introduce a variation in the thermal response and calculated sensitivity of micromachined gas sensors. In this paper a parametric study is conducted to investigate the effect of the variation in the thermal characteristics and the electrical characteristics (induced at different levels of the micro-fabrication of CMOS thin films) on the sensitivity of gas micro sensors. Three dimensional finite element modeling was used to conduct the parametric study. The multilevel substructuring modeling technique was used to reduce the computational cost of the analysis. The used substructuring technique is proven to reduce the computational cost of the parametric analysis by a factor that ranges from 57.8 to 78.7%. This expensive computational task has shown that the variation of some material properties can alter the sensitivity of gas micro sensors by a factor that can reach up to 40%. This large variation in sensor performance highlights the essential need for a close monitoring of different parameters involved in various micromachining stages of the gas micro sensors.

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)0.001
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207