MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969926065 · doi:10.1364/ol.44.004171

Size-scaling effects for microparticles and cells manipulated by optoelectronic tweezers

2019· article· en· W2969926065 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuailong Zhang, Weizhen Li, Mohamed Y. El‐Sayed, Pengfei Tian, Alasdair W. Clark, Aaron R. Wheeler, Steven L. Neale

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOptical tweezersDielectrophoresisTweezersMaterials scienceBeadOptical forceScalingElectric fieldNanotechnologyPolystyreneOptoelectronicsOpticsMicroparticleMicrofluidicsPolymerPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we investigated the use of optoelectronic tweezers (OET) to manipulate objects that are larger than those commonly positioned with standard optical tweezers. We studied the forces that could be produced on differently sized polystyrene microbeads and MCF-7 breast cancer cells with light-induced dielectrophoresis (DEP). It was found that the DEP force imposed on the bead/cell did not increase linearly with the volume of the bead/cell, primarily because of the non-uniform distribution of the electric field above the OET bottom plate. Although this size-scaling work focuses on microparticles and cells, we propose that the physical mechanism elucidated in this research will be insightful for other micro-objects, biological samples, and micro-actuators undergoing OET manipulation.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics LettersSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207