MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415386322 · doi:10.5194/jsss-14-219-2025

Development and analysis of microbridge resonators for reduced pull-in voltage and preserved resonant frequency

2025· article· en· W4415386322 on OpenAlexaff
Haleh Nazemi, Michael Schembri, Youssef Ezzat Elnemr, Arezoo Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sensors and sensor systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResonatorVoltageElectrodeFinite element methodReduction (mathematics)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study presents a novel design methodology for microbridge resonators aimed at reducing pull-in voltage while maintaining resonant frequency. Previous studies have primarily focused on adjusting resonator plate geometry, modifying anchor conditions, or altering material properties to control pull-in voltage. In contrast, this work introduces the ratio of the bottom electrode length to the microbridge length as a critical and tunable design parameter, which has remained unexplored in previous studies. An analytical model is developed to capture the effects of this ratio, and its predictions are validated through finite element analysis. To demonstrate the concept, two microbridges are designed and fabricated with bottom electrode lengths of 42 and 82 µm, corresponding to 35 % and 68 % of the microbridge length, respectively. All other design parameters, such as plate thickness, material properties and cavity height, are kept constant to enable a fair comparison. Electrical characterizations confirm that increasing the bottom electrode-to-microbridge length ratio effectively lowers the pull-in voltage without degrading resonator performance. Results show a 16 % reduction in pull-in voltage when the bottom electrode length is 68 % of the microbridge length, demonstrating the feasibility and advantages of the proposed methodology over existing techniques.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of sensors and sensor systemsSame topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207