MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015401097 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.72.235420

Determination of the atomic structure of scanning probe microscopy tungsten tips by field ion microscopy

2005· article· en· W2015401097 on OpenAlexaff
Anne-Sophie Lucier, Yan Sun, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField ion microscopeMaterials scienceScanning probe microscopyTungstenScanning ion-conductance microscopyMicroscopyAtomic unitsConductive atomic force microscopyAtom probeNanotechnologyRADIUSApex (geometry)Atomic force acoustic microscopyKelvin probe force microscopeCharacterization (materials science)Scanning capacitance microscopyResolution (logic)Atomic force microscopyOpticsIonScanning confocal electron microscopyPhysicsMagnetic force microscopeGeometryMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed knowledge of the tip apex structure is necessary for quantitative comparison between theory-based simulations and experimental observations of tip-substrate interactions in scanning probe microscopy (SPM). Here, we discuss field ion microscopy (FIM) techniques to characterize and atomically define SPM tungsten tips. The tip radius can be estimated from field emission data, while FIM imaging allows the full atomic characterization of the tip apex. We find that when FIM is applied to tips with a radius of a few nanometers (as is desirable for high-resolution atomic force microscopy imaging), limitations not apparent with less sharp tips arise; successful resolution of these limitations will extend the utility of FIM. Field evaporation can be used to atomically engineer the apex into a desired atomic configuration. Starting from a W(111) wire, a tip terminating in three atoms can reproducibly be fabricated; due to its geometry and stability, this apex configuration is well suited for application as an atomically defined electrical contact in SPM experiments aimed at understanding contact mechanics at the atomic scale.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207