MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013648316 · doi:10.1088/0963-0252/14/3/004

Co-axial ECR plasma system for radioactive ion implantation

2005· article· en· W2013648316 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc‐André Fortin, F. Marion, B.L. Stansfield, R.W. Paynter, D.K. Sarkar, A. Sarkissian, B. Terreault

Bibliographic record

VenuePlasma Sources Science and Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsPlasmionique (Canada)Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlasmaElectron cyclotron resonanceAtomic physicsIon implantationIonMaterials scienceArgonPlasma parametersChemistryIonizationIon sourceElectronPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pulsed, co-axial electron cyclotron resonance (ECR, 2.45 GHz) plasma reactor was designed and tested to demonstrate the feasibility of plasma-based radioactive ion implantation ( 32 P radioisotope). The geometry of the reactor was designed to produce an efficient implantation of cylindrical implants. Therefore, the reactor is cylindrical in shape, and is equipped with a cylindrical grid in a co-axial geometry. The plasma is created between the wall and the grid; the plasma surrounds the implant, allowing for a radial implantation. A 1 ms microwave pulse creates a plasma in argon, which sputters material from a radioactive cathode. A fraction of the radioisotopes is then ionized, and the ions are implanted into negatively biased metal samples. The plasma was characterized by means of electrostatic probes, giving spatial evaluations of the electron temperature, plasma potential and electron density. Titanium samples were implanted with 32 P during a study that aimed at optimizing the position of the radioactive sputter cathode in the plasma. From an analysis of the distribution of the radioactive fragments, we deduce that the plasma potential has a marked effect on the ion trajectories. In particular, it provides a more uniform implantation distribution than one would otherwise expect. For plasma densities ∼8 × 10 10 cm −3 , implantation efficiencies as high as 1% are measured; this is about 100 times higher than conventional beam-line ion implantation.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlasma Sources Science and TechnologySame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207