MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986503548 · doi:10.1117/12.707986

Fabrication of substrates for photonic band gap crystals growth

2006· article· en· W1986503548 on OpenAlexaff
Seydou Bassène, Roger A. Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPhotonic Crystals and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoresistMaterials scienceFabricationPhotonic crystalSubstrate (aquarium)Reactive-ion etchingOptoelectronicsEtching (microfabrication)Dry etchingColloidal crystalStackingNanotechnologyBand gapHolographyLayer (electronics)EngravingPhotonicsOpticsColloidChemical engineeringComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a technical processing to fabricate substrates (fused silica) for 3-D photonic bandgap material. The potential surface was modified to improve the colloidal method for nanoparticles assembly. This method allows orientating the growth of the colloidal crystals in a specific way; the crystalline plans growth is parallel to the surface of the substrate, and we can eliminate stacking defects and polycrystallinity. The substrate is obtained with ions beam engraving, according to the following process: A layer of photoresist is deposited on the substrate; we write two identical holographic gratings on the photoresist with 90° angle; After the development of photoresist, we obtain a profile which corresponds to one of the crystalline plans of the face centered cubic lattice; This profile will be transferred on the substrate by RIE (reactive ion etching). This substrate has many advantages: it is reusable because it is easily cleaned with solvents like acetone; the same substrate will be easy to use in order to make several growth tests and to optimize physicochemical parameters during artificial opals fabrication.

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 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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotonic Crystals and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207