MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1731017338 · doi:10.1109/plasma.2002.1030271

Characteristics of pulsetrain-burst machining

2003· article· en· W1731017338 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. T. Evans, Santiago Camacho-López, R. S. Marjoribanks

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningLaserBrittlenessSurface micromachiningUltrashort pulseOpticsMaterials scienceLaser beam machiningPulse (music)ThermalCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Mechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringComposite materialMetallurgyLaser beams

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given, as follows. The discovery of ultrafast-laser pulsetrain-burst machining at the University of Toronto has prompted new research into the physics involved in this regime of laser-matter interactions. Using the oscillator output of the Toronto FCM-CPA laser system we have been able to explore the effects of machining with a train of up to 400 1.2 ps pulses at a repetition rate of 133MHz. Pulsetrain burst machining has advantages over single pulse and CW laser machining. These include that drilling of holes at fluencies that would cause cracking or other negative thermal effects seen when using the other sources. Since the original work on this topic, which included the characterization of morphology of the drilled holes, we have further examined the physics behind this and conventional ultrafast laser machining by varying different parameters of the micromachining system. The technique is particularly useful for laser-material processing of brittle materials, especially glasses. We will describe the optical and thermal mechanisms behind hole-depth saturation in metals; part of which we believe is due to a loss of coherence caused by the pulse propagating down a multimode wave guide. We also will describe the connection between these mechanisms and our measurements of differential etch-rates.

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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207