MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597734246 · doi:10.1155/2015/897142

Low‐Temperature Sintering Bonding Using Silver Nanoparticle Paste for Electronics Packaging

2015· article· en· W1597734246 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Guo, Zhi Zeng, Xiaoying Zhang, Peng Peng, Tang Shanping

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanomaterials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSinteringComposite materialNanoparticleElectronic packagingElectronicsNanotechnologyElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ag nanoparticles (NPs) with about 40 nm diameter covered with 5–8 nm organic shell were prepared by chemical reduction reaction. The thermal characteristics of Ag nanoparticle (NP) paste were measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The low‐temperature sintering bonding processes using Ag NP paste were carried out at the temperature range of 150–350°C for 5 min under the pressure of 3 MPa. The microstructures of the sintered joint and the fracture morphology were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The shear strength was used to evaluate the mechanical property of the sintered joint. TGA‐DSC test showed that the Ag content is approximately 95.5 mass% in Ag NP paste. The average shear strength of the joint fabricated at 250°C for 5 min under the pressure of 3 MPa was about 28 MPa, which could meet the requirements of electronics packaging working at high temperature. The joint shear strength increased with the increase of the sintering temperature due to much denser sintered Ag NPs and more comprehensive metallurgical bonds formed in the joint.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanomaterialsSame topicElectronic Packaging and Soldering TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207