MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972331594 · doi:10.1364/ao.42.004037

Ion-beam etching for the precise manufacture of optical coatings

2003· article· en· W1972331594 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Poitras, J. A. Dobrowolski, Tom Cassidy, S. Moisa

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceEtching (microfabrication)SputteringIon beamDeposition (geology)OpticsFabricationFocused ion beamIon beam-assisted depositionThin filmOptoelectronicsBeam (structure)Optical coatingLayer (electronics)Sputter depositionIon beam depositionPhysical vapor depositionIonNanotechnologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose using ion-beam etching as an additional tool for the accurate control of the thickness of thin films during the manufacture of sensitive optical multilayer coatings. We use a dual ion-beam sputtering system in the deposition and etch modes. In the deposition mode both the assist and sputtering ion beams are used to produce dense films at deposition rates in the range of 0.1-0.3 nm/s. In the etch mode, only the assist ion beam is used to remove material at a rate of less than 0.1 nm/s. A very high precision in the layer thicknesses can be obtained by alternating between deposition and etch modes. We observed that etching did not significantly affect the surface quality and the uniformity of the coatings. We introduced etching into our current manufacturing process and demonstrated its potential for the fabrication of several optical multilayer systems with performances that are very sensitive to the thickness of their layers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207