MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018609763 · doi:10.1063/1.4789355

Computational analysis of the effect of surface roughness on the deflection of a gold coated silicon micro-cantilever

2013· article· en· W2018609763 on OpenAlexaff
Victor C. Hayden, Shofiur Rahman, Luc Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCantileverDeflection (physics)Materials scienceSurface roughnessSurface stressSiliconSurface finishAdsorptionComposite materialNanotechnologyOpticsOptoelectronicsChemistryPhysicsSurface energyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical simulations were performed to study the effects of surface roughness on the deflection of gold coated silicon cantilevers due to molecular adsorption. The cantilever was modeled using a ball and spring system where the spring constants for the Si-Si, Si-Au, and Au-Au bonds were obtained from first principal calculations. The molecular adsorption process was simulated by elongating the natural bond length of the surface bonding sites by 0.5%. Increasing the bond length created a surface stress on the cantilever causing it to deflect. The system studied consisted of a 1 μm portion of a cantilever of various surface roughnesses with variable boundary condition and was processed in parallel on the Atlantic Computational Excellence Network cluster. The results have indicated that cantilevers with a rougher gold surface deflected more than those with a smoother surface. The increase in deflection is attributed to an increase in stress raisers in the gold film localized around the surface features. The onset of stress raisers increases the differential stress between the top and bottom surfaces and results in an increase in the deflection of the cantilever.

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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207