MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276751873 · doi:10.1002/elps.201500361

Focusing particles by induced charge electrokinetic flow in a microchannel

2015· article· en· W2276751873 on OpenAlexaff
Yongxin Song, Chengfa Wang, Mengqi Li, Xinxiang Pan, Dongqing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrokinetic phenomenaMicrochannelVortexMechanicsParticle (ecology)Materials scienceElectric fieldParticle sizeHydraulic diameterFlow (mathematics)Aspect ratio (aeronautics)NanotechnologyChemistryPhysicsComposite materialReynolds numberTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method of sheathless particle focusing by induced charge electrokinetic flow in a microchannel is presented in this paper. By placing a pair of metal plates on the opposite walls of the channel and applying an electrical field, particle focusing is achieved due to the two pairs of vortex that constrain the flow of the particle solution. As an example, the trajectories of particles under different electrical fields with only one metal plate on one side channel wall were numerically simulated and experimentally validated. Other flow focusing effects, such as the focused width ratio (focused width/channel width) and length ratio (focused length/half-length of metal plate) of the sample solution, were also numerically studied. The results show that the particle firstly passes through the gaps between the upstream vortices and the channel walls. Afterwards, the particle is focused to pass through the gap between the two downstream vortices that determine the focused particle position. Numerical simulations show that the focused particle stream becomes thin with the increases in the applied electrical field and the length of the metal plates. As regards to the focused length ratio of the focused stream, however, it slightly increases with the increase in the applied electrical field and almost keeps constant with the increase in the length of the metal plate. The size of the focused sample solution, therefore, can be easily adjusted by controlling the applied electrical field and the sizes of the metal plates.

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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207