Comparison of photothermal and piezoacoustic excitation methods for frequency and phase modulation atomic force microscopy in liquid environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In attempting to perform frequency modulation atomic force microscopy (FM-AFM) in liquids, a non-flat phase transfer function in the self-excitation system prevents proper tracking of the cantilever natural frequency. This results in frequency-and-phase modulation atomic force microscopy (FPM-AFM) which lies in between phase modulation atomic force microscopy (PM-AFM) and FM-AFM. We derive the theory necessary to recover the conservative force and damping in such a situation, where standard FM-AFM theory no longer applies. Although our recovery procedure applies to all cantilever excitation methods in principle, its practical implementation may be difficult, or even impossible, if the cantilever is driven piezoacoustically. Specifically, we contrast the piezoacoustic excitation method to the photothermal method in the context of force spectroscopy of hydration structures at the mica-water interface. The results clearly demonstrate that photothermal excitation is superior to piezoacoustic excitation, as it allows for accurate quantitative interpretation of the acquired data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".