MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983443773 · doi:10.1063/1.3503220

Exploiting cantilever curvature for noise reduction in atomic force microscopy

2011· article· en· W1983443773 on OpenAlexafffund
Aleksander Labuda, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCantileverCurvatureDeflection (physics)OpticsAtomic force microscopyMaterials scienceRadius of curvatureShot noiseNon-contact atomic force microscopyPhysicsNanotechnologyConductive atomic force microscopyDetectorComposite materialMean curvatureGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical beam deflection is a widely used method for detecting the deflection of atomic force microscope (AFM) cantilevers. This paper presents a first order derivation for the angular detection noise density which determines the lower limit for deflection sensing. Surprisingly, the cantilever radius of curvature, commonly not considered, plays a crucial role and can be exploited to decrease angular detection noise. We demonstrate a reduction in angular detection shot noise of more than an order of magnitude on a home-built AFM with a commercial 450 μm long cantilever by exploiting the optical properties of the cantilever curvature caused by the reflective gold coating. Lastly, we demonstrate how cantilever curvature can be responsible for up to 45% of the variability in the measured sensitivity of cantilevers on commercially available AFMs.

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)0.004
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207