MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161426152 · doi:10.2351/7.0004093

Femtosecond laser 3D printing of optofluidic devices and systems

2018· article· en· W3161426152 on OpenAlexaff
Qiying Chen, Daiying Zhang, Xiaoxi Man, Liqiu Men

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemtosecondLaserMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsComputer scienceNanotechnologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Femtosecond laser micro-/nano-fabrication has been recognized as an enabling technology with unprecedented high precision and quality, which achieves the fabrication of various optoelectronic devices, including optofluidic devices for chemical and biomedical diagnostics with merits of versatile functionalities, compactness, high degree of integration, minimized waste, and low cost. Starting from the study on the fabrication of three-dimensional structures in dielectrics with the fundamental output of a femtosecond laser (wavelength at 800 nm, repetition rate of 1 kHz, and pulse energy up to 1 mJ), we report either a chemical etching-assisted femtosecond laser microfabrication technique or femtosecond laser induced multiphoton absorption technique to realize optofluidic devices. In this study, effects of fabrication parameters, such as laser energy, polarization of laser, and writing speed, have been investigated in order to identify optimal parameters for the realization of microstructures of different designs and specifications. Complex features have been designed and achieved to implement different functionalities. Fluidic movement in the optofluidic devices of different configurations, such as laminar flow and diffusion, has been explored for particle sorting. The applications of the femtosecond laser printed optofluidic devices and systems in sensing different environmental parameters, such as temperature, refractive index, pressure, and concentration, will be discussed, together with the revelation of different sensing mechanisms and the possibility of multiparameter sensing.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207