A velocity program using the Kanade–Lucas–Tomasi feature‐tracking algorithm with demonstration for pressure and electroosmosis conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigating microfluidic flow profiles is of interest in the microfluidics field for the determination of various characteristics of a lab-on-a-chip system. Microparticle tracking velocimetry uses computational methods upon recording video footage of microfluidic flow to ultimately visualize motion within a microfluidic system across all frames of a video. Current methods are computationally expensive or require extensive instrumentation. A computational method suited to microparticle tracking applications is the robust Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi (KLT) feature-tracking algorithm. This work explores a microparticle tracking velocimetry program using the KLT feature-tracking algorithm. The developed program is demonstrated using pressure-driven and EOF and compared with the respective mathematical fluid flow models. An electrostatics analysis of EOF conditions is performed in the development of the mathematical using a Poisson's Equation solver. This analysis is used to quantify the zeta potential of the electroosmotic system. Overall, the KLT feature-tracking algorithm presented in this work proved to be highly reliable and computationally efficient for investigations of pressure-driven and EOF in a microfluidic system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".