Assessment Criterion of Rigidity of Comb Electrodes Fingers of Microelectromechanical Converters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment criterion of rigidity of comb electrodes fingers of the microelectromechanical converters is developed. The assessment criterion allows to estimate the maximum electrodes fingers length to decrease approach probability of snap-down effect. The modeling results have been analyzed. The estimations of the maximum length of electrodes fingers are obtained. The estimates depend on length of electrodes fingers overlapping and applied voltage. The dependences of the maximum length of comb electrodes fingers on length of their overlapping and applied voltage are showed. Since all of the electromechanical converters are reversible, i.e. the converters can work as electrostatic actuators, as well as capacitive displacement transducers. If certain conditions occurs, the capacitive displacement transducers will start to work like electrostatic actuators. The criteria allowed to define these invertibility condition can be obtained from the equilibrium equations of sensitive elements of micromechanical devices. The proposed assessment criterion of the maximum length of combs electrodes fingers can be used to design micromechanical devices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".