MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329047097 · doi:10.1021/nl2031458

Enhanced Optical Trapping and Arrangement of Nano-Objects in a Plasmonic Nanocavity

2011· article· en· W2329047097 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chang Chen, Mathieu L. Juan, Yi Li, Guido Maes, Gustaaf Borghs, Pol Van Dorpe, Romain Quidant

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKU LeuvenFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsOptical tweezersPlasmonTrappingNanoscopic scaleMaterials scienceNanoporeNanotechnologyMicrometerOptoelectronicsDielectricTrap (plumbing)NanophotonicsFigure of meritNanometreOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gentle manipulation of micrometer-sized dielectric objects with optical forces has found many applications in both life and physical sciences. To further extend optical trapping toward the true nanometer scale, we present an original approach combining self-induced back action (SIBA) trapping with the latest advances in nanoscale plasmon engineering. The designed resonant trap, formed by a rectangular plasmonic nanopore, is successfully tested on 22 nm polystyrene beads, showing both single- and double-bead trapping events. The mechanism responsible for the higher stability of the double-bead trapping is discussed, in light of the statistical analysis of the experimental data and numerical calculations. Furthermore, we propose a figure of merit that we use to quantify the achieved trapping efficiency and compare it to prior optical nanotweezers. Our approach may open new routes toward ultra-accurate immobilization and arrangement of nanoscale objects, such as biomolecules.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations186
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207