Ceramics for Microelectromechanical Systems Applications: A Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive review of the application of different ceramics for MEMS devices is presented. Main ceramics materials used for MEMS systems and devices including alumina, zirconia, aluminum Nitride, Silicon Nitride, and LTCC are introduced. Conventional and new methods of fabricating each material are explained based on the literature, along with the advantages of the new approaches, mainly additive manufacturing, i.e., 3D-printing technologies. Various manufacturing processes with relevant sub-techniques are detailed and the ones that are more suitable to have an application for MEMS devices are highlighted with their properties. In the main body of this paper, each material with its application for MEMS is categorized and explained. The majority of works are within three main classifications, including the following: (i) using ceramics as a substrate for MEMS devices to be mounted or fabricated on top of it; (ii) ceramics are a part of the materials used for an MEMS device or a monolithic fabrication of MEMS and ceramics; and finally, (iii) using ceramics as packaging solution for MEMS devices. We elaborate on how ceramics may be superior substitutes over other materials when delicate MEMS-based systems need to be assembled or packaged by a simpler fabrication process as well as their advantages when they need to operate in harsh environments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it