Efficient cross‐section preparation method for high‐resolution imaging of hard polymer composites with a scanning electron microscope
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
Characterization of distribution and arrangement of filler particles in polymer composites is of primary importance to understand and maximize their mechanical, electrical and thermal properties. An innovative procedure that allows reliable and straightforward preparation of cross-sections of polymer composites with the use of mechanical polishing, ion beam etching and soft gaseous etching is presented in this paper. Because of the inherent difference between the organic amorphous matrix and the inorganic crystalline nature of composite fillers, the removal of matrix layers at the surface of the cross-section at the expense of the inorganic materials allowed characterizing the composite filler particles structure and distribution over the surface. Since beam broadening did not occur before the beam hit the nanoparticles, high-resolution imaging in the scanning electron microscope was possible and true dimensions and orientation of the particles were observed. This provided more flexibility in selecting the primary beam voltage; especially, the use of low beam energy greatly improved the image contrast and reduced charging effects resulting from the primary electron beam bombardment. It was shown that only polymers with a carbonated main chain could be etched selectively by the gaseous etching process.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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