MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009595382 · doi:10.1117/12.2538295

Graphene material characterisation for optofluidic applications

2020· article· en· W3009595382 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Del Rosso, Harrison Brodie, Christopher M. Collier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrowetting and Microfluidic Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneFabricationPhotolithographyMaterials scienceContact angleMicrosystemNanotechnologyGraphite oxideGraphiteOptoelectronicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional photolithography methods of fabrication of micro-opto-electro-mechanical systems (MOEMS) can be substituted with graphene to minimize cost and enhance optofluidic system integration. The use of optical disc drives allows graphite oxide to undergo (near infrared) light exposure, with a specified pattern, and transformation to graphene, also with this specified pattern. This work describes the fabrication methods, electrical conduction and hydrophobicity characteristics for graphene microsystems. The fabrication characterisation involves a comparison of graphene fabrication of microsystems with photolithography fabrication. Graphene fabrication was observed to be comparable to the photolithography fabrication, with a comparable minimum feature size. The electrical characterisation involves resistivity measurements of graphene which decrease from <i>n</i> = 1 (where <i>n</i> represents the dose of light exposure in the disc drive), and saturates at <i>n</i> = 12, representing the final transformation to graphene from graphite oxide. The microfluidic characterisation of the graphene surface involves contact angle measurements and favourable wetting properties are shown. By increasing the fabrication dose, the contact angle rises from 50 degrees until saturation at 116 degrees, allowing for contact angle tunability over this range. Overall, fabrication of MOEMS is found to be successfully achievable using graphene fabrication.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrowetting and Microfluidic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207