MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386126088 · doi:10.32920/24026670

Lab on a rod: Size-based particle separation and sorting in a helical channel

2023· preprint· en· W4386126088 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Palumbo, Maryam Navi, Scott Tsai, J.K. Spelt, M. Papini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpiral (railway)MicrofluidicsMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)Channel (broadcasting)Volumetric flow rateParticle sizeFootprintSurface micromachiningRADIUSSeparation (statistics)MicrochannelMechanicsNanotechnologyMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringComputer scienceChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Size-based particle separation using inertial microfluidics in spiral channels has been well studied over the past decade. Though these devices can effectively separate particles, they require a relatively large device footprint with a typical outer channel radius of approximately 15 mm. In this paper, we describe a microfluidic device with a footprint diameter of 5.5 mm, containing a helical channel capable of inertial particle separation fabricated using abrasive jet micromachining. The separation of particles in several channel geometries was studied using wide-field fluorescence microscopy. A maximum separation efficiency of approximately 90% was achieved at a flow rate of 1.5 ml/min with a purity of approximately 95% at the outlet, where large particles were collected. An accompanying computational fluid dynamics model was developed to allow researchers to quickly assess the separation capability of their helical or spiral devices.</p>

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207