MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012369645 · doi:10.2351/1.4917043

Morphology based statistical analysis of nanosecond pulsed laser texturing of the multicrystalline silicon

2015· article· en· W2012369645 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrnegar Aghayan, Sivakumar Narayanswamy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Laser Applications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFluenceLaserSurface roughnessSiliconSurface finishPulse durationOpticsNanosecondWavelengthProfilometerIrradiationOptoelectronicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the surface morphology of the textured multicrystalline silicon with nanosecond (ns) Nd: YVO4 laser (wavelength of 1064 nm, repetition rate of 10 KHz, and pulse duration of 14 ns). Various surface topographies have been achieved with different laser as well as irradiation parameters. The textured area average roughness and depth have been statistically analyzed through ANOVA test, which could evaluate the significance and effectiveness of the adopted design of experiment. This research work is based on three control factors: Laser fluence, laser pulse overlap percentage, and number of irradiations. The statistical assessments were conducted based on roughness and depth values measured by optical interferometry. The effect of roughness and depth on solar weighted reflectance (SWR) was analyzed and significant reduction in SWR with increase in Ra was observed. In addition, time and energy consumption, which are highly significant in the industrial applications, have been investigated.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Laser ApplicationsSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207