MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174248627 · doi:10.1088/1361-6439/ac0fbf

Silicon MEMS inertial sensors evolution over a quarter century

2021· article· en· W3174248627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giacomo Langfelder, Marco Bestetti, Marco Gadola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroelectromechanical systemsQuarter (Canadian coin)Inertial frame of referenceSiliconSilicon valleyInertial measurement unitEngineeringElectrical engineeringOptoelectronicsAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Silicon-based microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) inertial sensors have become ubiquitous, revolutionizing motion sensing, vibration sensing and accurate positioning in several societal fields. Driven by consumer and automotive markets, companies involved in this technological development focused mostly on low cost, miniaturization and low power consumption, somewhat sacrificing measurement accuracy. In several laboratories all over the world, however, the research toward higher-performance sensors has been going on for more than two decades, with the goal of improving two key parameters for future applications: noise density and bias stability. This review article summarizes, for silicon-based MEMS accelerometers and gyroscopes, the most relevant working principles that appeared in the scientific literature. The collection of several data about the above mentioned key figures enables tracing the roadmap for further developments in the upcoming decade.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations109
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207