MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946490250 · doi:10.1002/mop.31870

Using femtosecond laser processing quartz glass microchannel sample cell

2019· article· en· W2946490250 on OpenAlexaff
Fubin Wang, Mengzhu Liu, Xiaotong Huo, Lei Chen, Jianxiong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrowave and Optical Technology Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrochannelMaterials scienceQuartzFemtosecondLaserOpticsFused quartzLaser power scalingLaser ablationLaser-induced fluorescenceNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To improve the intensity and reliability of the emission fluorescence spectrum signal of petroleum pollutant samples, we designed multiple microchannel sample pools to replace traditional sample pool with square section. First, the microchannel structure of the sample pool was designed. Second, we analyzed the pulse intensity distribution and laser ablation volume (LAV) of a femtosecond laser. Then, based on the LAV, we tested the oblique motion of the laser focus at a 45° angle combined with the change in laser power, ablated a specific length region on the quartz glass surface, and indirectly determined the processed depth of the hole inside the quartz glass. Finally, using quartz glasses of 2, 5, and 10 mm in thickness as substrates, we separately varied the processing speed in the x‐direction, feed rate in the y‐direction, and laser output power of the laser processing platform, and obtained the shape‐structure of the microchannel inside the quartz glass under different processing parameter combinations. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method is effective at processing a specific hole depth inside the quartz glass. Experiments show that the sample cell can be used for comparative detection of fluorescence signals.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrowave and Optical Technology LettersSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207