MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Atom probe tomography analysis of poly(3‐alkylthiophene)s

2009· article· en· W2021541426 on OpenAlexaff
Ty J. Prosa, S Kostrna Keeney, Thomas F. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microscopy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials Characterization Techniques
Canadian institutionsGenome Prairie
FundersMinistry of Earth SciencesMinistry of Education, IndiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAtom probeEvaporationDeposition (geology)Materials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Yield (engineering)Mass spectrometryElectrosprayPulsed laser depositionMorphology (biology)LaserElectrospray ionizationIonizationMass spectrumAtom (system on chip)ChemistryThin filmNanotechnologyOpticsIonComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulsed-laser atom-probe tomography is used to compare the field-evaporation mass spectrum and spatial distribution of molecular fragments from various poly(3-alkylthiophene) films deposited on sharpened aluminium specimen carriers using two different deposition methods. Films deposited via a modified solution-cast methodology yield small fragments with a uniform structural morphology whereas films deposited via an electrospray ionization methodology yield a wide range of fragments with a very non-uniform structural morphology. The main field-evaporated chemical species identified for both deposition types were, in order of typical relative abundance, C(2)H(5) (+), CH(3) (+), C(2)H(4) (+), followed by C(3)H(7,8) (+)/SC(+) and SCH(+). Thick electrospray depositions allowed investigation of the influence of laser-pulse energy on the analysis. Evidence is presented supporting the presence of a critical laser-pulse energy whereby changes in film morphology are signalled by the appearance of a new mass fragment at 190 Da.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MicroscopySame topicAdvanced Materials Characterization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207