Novel techniques of preparing TEM samples for characterization of irradiation damage
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
Focus ion beam preparation of transmission electron microscopy (TEM) samples has become increasingly popular due to the relative ease of extraction of TEM foils from specific locations within a larger sample. However the sputtering damage induced by Ga ion bombardment in focus ion beam means that traditional electropolishing may be a preferable method. First, we describe a special electropolishing method for the preparation of irregular TEM samples from ex-service nuclear reactor components, spring-shaped spacers. This method has also been used to prepare samples from a nonirradiated component for a TEM in situ heavy ion irradiation study. Because the specimen size is small (0.7 × 0.7 × 3 mm), a sandwich installation is adopted to obtain high quality polishing. Second, we describe some modifications to a conventional TEM cross-section sample preparation method that employs Ni electroplating. There are limitations to this method when preparing cross-section samples from either (1) metals which are difficult to activate for electroplating, or (2) a heavy ion irradiated foil with a very shallow damage layer close to the surface, which may be affected by the electroplating process. As a consequence, a novel technique for preparing cross-section samples was developed and is described.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it