MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170294632 · doi:10.3390/s21124076

Smartphone Screen Integrated Optical Breathalyzer

2021· article· en· W3170294632 on OpenAlexafffund
Jérôme Lapointe, Hélène-Sarah Bécotte-Boutin, Stéphane Gagnon, Simon Levasseur, Philippe Labranche, Marc D’Auteuil, Manel Abdellatif, Ming-Jun Li, Réal Vallée

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsMobile phoneComputer sciencePhoneWearable computerSimulationEmbedded systemTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One third of fatal car accidents and so many tragedies are due to alcohol abuse. These sad numbers could be mitigated if everyone had access to a breathalyzer anytime and anywhere. Having a breathalyzer built into a phone or wearable technology could be the way to get around reluctance to carry a separate device. With this goal, we propose an inexpensive breathalyzer that could be integrated in the screens of mobile devices. Our technology is based on the evaporation rate of the fog produced by the breath on the phone screen, which increases with increasing breath alcohol content. The device simply uses a photodiode placed on the side of the screen to measure the signature of the scattered light intensity from the phone display that is guided through the stress layer of the Gorilla glass screen. A part of the display light is coupled to the stress layer via the evanescent field induced at the edge of the breath microdroplets. We demonstrate that the intensity signature measured at the detector can be linked to blood alcohol content. We fabricated a prototype in a smartphone case powered by the phone's battery, controlled by an application installed on the smartphone, and tested it in real-world environments. Limitations and future work toward a fully operational device are discussed.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207