MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378174268 · doi:10.1088/1361-6439/acd8c3

Fabrication of low-cost MEMS microfluidic devices using metal embossing technique on glass for lab-on-chip applications

2023· article· en· W4378174268 on OpenAlexaff
P. Madhankumar, L. Sujatha, R. Sundar, G. Viswanadam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofabrication and Lithography Techniques
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbossingFabricationMaterials scienceMicroelectromechanical systemsWaferMicrofluidicsLayer (electronics)Substrate (aquarium)Manufacturing costPlating (geology)ChipNanotechnologyMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper discusses a low-cost technology for the fabrication of microfluidic devices on glass substrate using metal embossing technique. The fabrication technique demonstrated is a much simpler approach of embossing on glass using thermo-compression process with a patterned metal layer to define device structure. Well established printed circuit board fabrication photo-process is used to realize the desired planar geometry on metal layer deposited over a glass substrate. The depth of the channel is defined by the thickness of the metal deposited by electro-plating. The embossing technology offers a relatively safer approach conducive to batch processing to enable repeatable, high-yield, low-cost devices fabricated using low-cost equipment. Major challenges of achieving adhesion of the deposited thick nickel layer without peel-off and control of the thermo-compression process to achieve reliable and repeatable embossing without structural distortions were addressed. To prove its suitability for manufacturing, experiments were carried out with full wafer of 6″ × 6″ square glass wafer and optimal process steps for low-cost microfluidic device manufacturing have been well established.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicNanofabrication and Lithography TechniquesFrench-language works237,207