Two linear beetle-type scanning tunneling microscopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two beetle-type scanning tunneling microscopes are described. Both designs have the thermal stability of the Besocke beetle and the simplicity of the Wilms beetle. Moreover, sample holders were designed that also allow both semiconductor wafers and metal single crystals to be studied. The coarse approach is a linear motion of the beetle towards the sample using inertial slip–stick motion. Ten wires are required to control the position of the beetle and scanner and measure the tunneling current. The two beetles were built with different sized piezolegs, and the vibrational properties of both beetles were studied in detail. It was found, in agreement with previous work, that the beetle bending mode is the lowest principal eigenmode. However, in contrast to previous vibrational studies of beetle-type scanning tunneling microscopes, we found that the beetles did not have the “rattling” modes that are thought to arise from the beetle sliding or rocking between surface asperities on the raceway. The mass of our beetles is 3–4 times larger than the mass of beetles where rattling modes have been observed. We conjecture that the mass of our beetles is above a “critical beetle mass.” This is defined to be the beetle mass that attenuates the rattling modes by elastically deforming the contact region to the extent that the rattling modes cannot be identified as distinct modes in cross-coupling measurements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".