MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895999539 · doi:10.2351/1.5060097

Ultrashort pulse laser machining of microchannels in polymers and glass materials for fabrication of a microfluidic optical switch

2003· article· en· W2895999539 on OpenAlexaff
H. Y. Zheng, H. Liu, Stephen Wan, G.C. Lim, Suwas Nikumb, Q. Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLaser beam machiningLaserFemtosecondNanosecondPolycarbonateMachiningOptoelectronicsMicrofluidicsSurface roughnessFabricationMicroelectromechanical systemsOpticsNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymers and glasses are important materials for non-silicon MEMS devices. Precision structuring of such materials has been plagued by the lack of proper tools capable of producing the required intricate details and finish quality. Machining with high peak power, short pulse lasers has become a potential technique for such applications due to the reduced thermal damage, high precision, small feature size and flexibility in pattern generation. In particular, the nanosecond and femtosecond pulsed lasers offer significant advantages with the ability to deposit energy in materials in a very short time interval, hence ensuring efficient conversion of the energy for material removal. In this paper, the results of using femtosecond laser to process polycarbonate, aluminosilicate glasses and nanosecond laser processing of aluminosilicate glasses are discussed. High quality microchannels in polycarbonate and glass substrates for a bubble switch have been created. The critical dimensions are at the micro scale. No cracks or burrs were observed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The major processing variables such as cutting speed, energy fluence and power stability were investigated for their effects on machining quality. Microchannels with sub-micron surface roughness and high-aspect ratios were demonstrated. Preliminary testing of a bubble switch, which is based on the thermo-capillary effect, confirmed the working principle of the device; but indicated that the channels would have to be more narrower to achieve greater switching speeds.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207