MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972108628 · doi:10.1364/osac.2.002694

Mechanically-tuned optofluidic lenses for in-plane focusing of light

2019· article· en· W2972108628 on OpenAlexafffund
Shravani Prasad, Adesh Kadambi, Yazeed K. Alwehaibi, Christopher M. Collier

Bibliographic record

VenueOSA Continuum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLens (geology)OpticsMaterials scienceFocal lengthOptofluidicsRay tracing (physics)Plane (geometry)Cardinal pointOptoelectronicsMicrofluidicsNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In-plane lenses are desired for light manipulation within on-chip platforms. Such an in-plane lens can be achieved through optofluidic lens technologies that provide tunability of optical parameters through alterations to the shape or size of the lens. However, passive optofluidic lenses are often more desirable than active optofluidic lenses. In this work, we design a passive mechanically-tuned optofluidic lens. Tunability is brought about by placing a microdroplet between two substrate plates and varying the plate separation. We carry out analyses with an experimental optical setup and theoretical ray tracing. The experimental optical setup makes use of a fluorescent dye filler fluid to assist in the visualization and measurement of the back focal length. Ultimately, the sensitivity of the back focal length to a change in plate separation is shown, with strong agreement between experimental and theoretical analyses. It is envisioned that such a mechanically-tuned optofluidic lens will be used in a myriad of in-plane optical applications.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSA ContinuumSame topicElectrowetting and Microfluidic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207