MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987811634 · doi:10.1117/12.2040032

Synchronized videography of plasma plume expansion during femtosecond laser ablation

2014· article· en· W1987811634 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Paolasini, Anne Kietzig

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemtosecondPlumeLaserOpticsLaser ablationMaterials scienceMachiningPlasmaHomogeneity (statistics)Computer sciencePhysicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Femtosecond lasers are gaining industrial interest for surface patterning and structuring because of the reduced heat effects to the surrounding material, resulting in a good quality product with a high aspect ratio. Analysis of the plasma plume generated during ablation can provide useful information about the laser-material interactions and thereby the quality of the resulting surface patterns. As a low-cost alternative to rather complicated ICCD camera setups, presented here is an approach based on filming the laser machining process with a high speed camera and tuning the frame rate of the camera to slightly lower than the laser pulse frequency. The delay in frequency between the laser and camera results in frames taken from sequential pulses. Each frame represents a later phase of plume expansion although taken from different pulses. Assuming equal plume evolution processes from pulse to pulse, the sequence of images obtained completes a plume expansion video. To test the assumption of homogeneity between sequential plumes, the camera can be tuned to the frequency of the laser, as to capture consecutive plumes at the same phase in their evolution. This approach enables a relatively low-cost, high resolution visualization of plasma plume evolution suitable for industrial micromachining applications with femtosecond lasers. Using this approach we illustrate differences in plume expansion at the example of machining homogeneous surface patterns in different liquid and gaseous processing environments.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207