MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002562697 · doi:10.1063/1.3236630

Ablation and structural changes induced in InP surfaces by single 10 fs laser pulses in air

2009· article· en· W2002562697 on OpenAlexafffund
Jörn Bonse, A. Rosenfeld, Christian Grebing, Günter Steinmeyer, Nicholas A. Mailman, G. A. Botton, H. K. Haugen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceSapphireLaserOpticsLaser ablationTransmission electron microscopyFemtosecondSingle crystalOptical microscopeMicroscopyAmorphous solidAblationLayer (electronics)Scanning electron microscopeOptoelectronicsCrystallographyComposite materialChemistryNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ablation of single-crystalline (100) indium phosphide wafer surfaces with single 10 fs Ti:sapphire laser pulses in air has been studied by means of complementary cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy, scanning force microscopy, and optical microscopy. A local protrusion of ∼70 nm height is generated within the ablation craters for fluences exceeding 0.78 J/cm2. This morphological feature has been studied in detail, revealing the material structure of the laser-affected zone and its spatial extent. The resolidified layer (60–200 nm thick) consists of polycrystalline grains (5–15 nm diameter) and is covered by an ∼10 nm thick amorphous top layer. Interestingly, the sharp boundary of the solidified layer to the unaffected crystal underneath exhibits a Gaussian-like shape and does not follow the shape of the surface topography. Evidence is presented that the central crater protrusion is formed by near-surface optical breakdown, and that the absorption in the material transiently changes during the femtosecond-laser pulse.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207