Polymer Masks Fabrication by Micropatterning Surfaces of Composite Polymer Coatings
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
Abstract Micropatterning of surfaces has been demonstrated using composite polymer coatings of PS and PMMA of equal molecular weights in different volume proportions with varying surface topographies on silicon surfaces. The creation of PMMA masks with various surface morphological features has also been demonstrated by removal of PS from the composite coatings using cyclohexane. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) investigations revealed that the surface pattern and the dimensions of these masks significantly changed with the change in the volume proportions of each homopolymer. The composite coatings of 20/80 vol% PS/PMMA, 50/50 vol% PS/PMMA, and 80/20 vol% PS/PMMA resulted in PMMA masks with holes (depth ∼300 nm), wrinkles (height ∼350 nm) and pillars (height ∼600 nm), respectively. Surface compositional analysis carried out using FTIR and XPS investigations confirmed the presence of polymer coatings of PS, PMMA and PS/PMMA. XPS investigations also confirmed the successful removal of PS from the PMMA mask by showing the presence of the silicon substrate on those masks where PS was previously present. The water contact angle of the composite polymer masks ranged from 70 to 90° which increased with the increase of PS vol% in the composite. The wetting behavior of certain PMMA masks showed hydrophobicity with water contact angle values above 90°.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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