A Force Limitation for Successful Observation of Atomic Defects: Defect Trappong of the Atomic Force Microscopy Tip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical simulations of atomic force microscopy (AFM) scans while operating in contact mode indicate that there is a natural limit to the maximum nondestructive scan force near atomic defects. This limit is much smaller than the force calculated for nondestructive scans on a defect free surface. The limit is a function of the nature of the sample lattice and imaging medium, and results from a specific force dependence between the AFM tip and sample near the defect, which essentially “traps” the AFM tip apex at constant height in the vicinity of the defect. The AFM feedback system is unable to respond to the trapping, and consequently, the monoatomic apex of the tip collides with the sample surface as the scan continues. The collision effectively produces either a multitip or removes the defect. Further, we find that for a lattice constant less than 0.29–0.3 nm, point-like atomic vacancies cannot be observed, regardless of the scan force used and the medium in which scans are performed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".