Rapid fabrication of sieved microwells and cross-flow microparticle trapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of microwells is popular for a wide range of applications due to its' simplicity. However, the seeding of conventional microwells, which are closed at the bottom, is restricted to gravitational sedimentation for cell or particle deposition and therefore require lengthy settling times to maximize well occupancy. The addition of microfluidics to the capture process has accelerated cell or particle dispersion and improved capture ability but is mostly limited to gravitationally-driven settling for capture into the wells. An alternative approach to conventional closed-microwells, sieved microwells supersedes reliance on gravity by using hydrodynamic forces through the open pores at the bottom of the microwells to draw targets into the wells. We have developed a rapid fabrication method, based on flow lithography techniques, which allows us to easily customize the mesh pore sizes in a simple two-step process. Finally, by combining this microwell design with cross-flow trapping in a microfluidic two-layered channel, we achieve an 88 ± 6% well occupancy in under 10 s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".