MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019200299 · doi:10.1109/apec.2014.6803814

Performance comparison of thermal interface materials for power electronics applications

2014· article· en· W2019200299 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
Canadian institutionsDelta-Q Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeat sinkThermal greaseThermal resistancePrinted circuit boardElectronicsThermalMaterials scienceHeat transferMechanical engineeringPower electronicsElectrical engineeringPower moduleContact resistancePower (physics)Composite materialEngineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One important challenge in power electronics design is removing the heat cost effectively from the power devices mounted on thermal vias on a printed circuited board (PCB). Thermal vias is a cluster of small diameter hole plated with copper and is used to transfer the heat from one side of the PCB where the power device is soldered to the other side which is generally mounted on a heat sink using a thermal interface material (TIM). To minimize the contact resistance and provide electrical insulation between the PCB and heat sink, TIMs are used to fill the air gaps and are an essential part of an assembly when solid surfaces are attached together. This paper presents a detailed comparison of the properties of various off-the-shelf available TIMs to be specifically used between PCB with thermal vias and heat sink. Experimental results are presented to determine the thermal performance of various TIMs.

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 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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