Introduction: A Special Issue on Nanoscale Characterization Using Atom Probe Field Ion Microscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While searching the internet for “nanotechnology,” I was not surprised to find many definitions. Two of these are as follows: (1) nanotechnology is the development and use of devices that have a size of only a few nanometers; and (2) nanotechnology can best be considered as a “catch-all” description of activities at the level of atoms and molecules that have applications in the real world. While nanotechnology is usually focused on the building of structures at the atomic scale, the characterization of such structures should also be considered as nanotechnology. At the Microscopy and Microanalysis 2002 Meeting in Quebec City, together with Tom Kelly and Mike Thompson, I organized a symposium entitled “Advances in Nanoscale Technology.” The response to this symposium was impressive, with 32 contributed and 7 invited presentations. Some of these presentations concentrated on atom probe field ion microscopy and form the basis for the invited contributions in this special issue of Microscopy and Microanalysis .
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it