MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582171384 · doi:10.3390/mi8010029

Glass Imprint Templates by Spark Assisted Chemical Engraving for Microfabrication by Hot Embossing

2017· article· en· W2582171384 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucas A. Hof, Xin Dong Guo, Minseok Seo, Rolf Wüthrich, Jesse Greener

Bibliographic record

VenueMicromachines · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofabrication and Lithography Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrofabricationEmbossingTemplateFabricationMaterials scienceRapid prototypingPolycarbonateMicroelectromechanical systemsEngravingSPARK (programming language)NanotechnologyComputer scienceEngineering drawingComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the field of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) matures, new demands are being placed on the microfabrication of complex architectures in robust materials, such as hard plastics. Iterative design optimization in a timely manner—rapid prototyping—places challenges on template fabrication, for methods such as injection moulding and hot embossing. In this paper, we demonstrate the possibility of using spark assisted chemical engraving (SACE) to produce micro patterned glass templates. The direct, write-based approach enabled the facile fabrication of smooth microfeatures with variations in all three-dimensions, which could be replicated by hot embossing different thermoplastics. As a proof of principle, we demonstrated the technique for a high glass transition temperature polycarbonate. Good fidelity over more than 10 cycles provides evidence that the approach is viable for rapid prototyping and has the potential to satisfy commercial-grade production at medium-level output volumes. Glass imprint templates showed no degradation after use, but care must be taken due to brittleness. The technique has the potential to advance microfabrication needs in academia and could be used by MEMS product developers.

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 score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicromachinesSame topicNanofabrication and Lithography TechniquesFrench-language works237,207