Distribution of the Clamped Boundary and Its Impact on Resonator Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capacitive resonator performance including sensitivity is determined by its capacitive change and resonant frequency shift in response to an external perturbation such as added mass. Conventional designs are inherently defined by fully clamped boundaries around the deflectable plate. However, recent advances suggest that bilateral and quadrilateral concentric boundary resonators can offer improved performance through enhanced deflection compared to conventional fully clamped resonators. This work analyses how the spatial distribution of clamped boundaries under identical total clamped angles affects key resonator metrics including sensitivity, which is manifested through change in capacitance and frequency shift in electrical characterization. Resonators with bilateral and quadrilateral clamped boundary configurations are the focus of this work to demonstrate the idea. In order to do this, resonators with total clamped angles of 120°, 180°, and 240° are fabricated and characterized using electrical impedance analysis, with results in agreement with the conducted finite element analysis. The quadrilateral configurations outperformed bilateral ones in both frequency shift and capacitance change, indicating that clamped boundary distribution serves as a critical design parameter. These findings offer new insight into structural optimization strategies for capacitive resonators beyond conventional clamping schemes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".