MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The structural analysis possibilities of reflection high energy electron diffraction

2010· article· en· W1973413588 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics D Applied Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectronic and Structural Properties of Oxides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectron diffractionReflection (computer programming)Bragg's lawEpitaxyScatteringReflection high-energy electron diffractionDiffractionInelastic scattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epitaxial growth of complex oxide thin films provide three avenues to generate unique properties: the ability to influence the 3-dimensional structure of the film, the presence of a surface, and the generation of an interface. In all three cases, a clear understanding of the resulting atomic structure is desirable. However, determining the full structure of an epitaxial thin film (lattice parameters, space group, atomic positions, surface reconstructions) on a routine basis is a serious challenge. In this paper we highlight the remarkable information that can be extracted from both the Bragg scattering and inelastic multiple scattering events that occur during Reflection High Energy Electron Diffraction. We review some methods to extract structural information and show how mature techniques used in other fields can be directly applied to the {\em in-situ} and real-time diffraction images of a growing film. These collection of techniques give access to both the epitaxially influenced 3 dimensional bulk structure of the film, and any reconstructions that may happen at the surface.

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 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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
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