MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329055545 · doi:10.1115/icmm2005-75116

Electrokinetic Concentration Gradient Generation Using a Converging-Diverging Microchannel

2005· article· en· W2329055545 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacky S.H. Lee, Yandong Hu, Dongqing Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrochannelElectrokinetic phenomenaMicromixerConcentration gradientMechanicsMicrofluidicsMixing (physics)Materials scienceFlow (mathematics)ChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyPhysicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creation of concentration gradients is important in the study of biological and chemical processes that are sensitive to concentration variations. This paper presents a simple method to generate a linear concentration gradient in electroosmotic flow in microchannels with converging and diverging geometries. The method is based on the enhanced diffusive mixing inside the microchannel. By varying the converging-diverging geometries, the degree of diffusive mixing can be controlled. Different concentration gradients can be obtained by varying the applied potential and the geometry. Concentration profiles with minimal axial variations can be achieved with a deviation of 7% and 3% over a channel length of 3mm and 1mm, respectively, for a 400μm wide microchannel. Although the underlying physics and mechanisms for creating concentration profiles in a converging-diverging microchannel are the same as a T-shaped micromixer, the converging-diverging microchannel can produce desired concentration profiles in a much shorter distance (shorter by a factor of 2∼3.5 compared to a T-shape mixer). A serially connected concentration gradient generator is also realized with the ability to generate two concentration gradient ranges in the same microchannel. Numerical simulations and experiments were carried out to investigate the factors contributed to the generation of the concentration gradients.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207