MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036778247

Challenges and solutions in laser micro fabrication of micro parts, mechanisms, and sensors

2007· article· en· W7036778247 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFabricationSurface micromachiningLaserMachiningLaser beam machiningSurface roughnessMicrofabricationPrecision engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-conventional micro fabrication technologies, such as laser micro machining, micro EDM, etc., are [the] most suitable and cost effective choice for prototyping of micro parts/systems, and also in some cases, for batch production. This is especially true for complex microdevices which require functional and/or composite materials other than silicon. In this presentation, NRC-IMTI's capabilities in laser micro fabrication of micro mechanisms, eg., actuators and grippers, integrated with force/displacement capacitive sensors, and in micro fabrication of 2D/3D micro moulds and dies for microfluidics applications are discussed. Systematic representation of the high-precision laser material removal process uncovers main disturbances that affect fabrication with nano/micro-scale accuracy, precision, and geometric quality. Using case studies of micro parts and mechanisms fabricated by the laser micromachining technology, several machining challenges related to non-uniformity and dynamic errors of motions, corner accuracy, asynchronization of motions and laser on/off events in space and time with respect to the part geometry, are evaluated. Also, effect and optimization of several process parameters, such as laser power, focal distance, number of machining passes, etc., are evaluated with respect to the machined surface topology. Results of these studies allowed achieving accuracy and precision of fabricated micro parts and mechanisms within +/- one micrometer or less and surface roughness of 70 nm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207