MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of the local contact potential difference of PTCDA on NaCl: a comparison of techniques

2009· article· en· W2026089066 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

VenueNanotechnology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceVolta potentialNanotechnologyAtomic force microscopyKelvin probe force microscope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been increasing focus on the use of Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) for the determination of local electronic structure in recent years, especially in systems where other methods, such as scanning tunnelling microscopy/spectroscopy, may be intractable. We have examined three methods for determining the local apparent contact potential difference (CPD): frequency modulation KPFM (FM-KPFM), amplitude modulation KPFM (AM-KPFM), and frequency shift-bias spectroscopy, on a test system of 3,4,9,10-perylene tetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA) on NaCl, an example of an organic semiconductor on a bulk insulating substrate. We will discuss the influence of the bias modulation on the apparent CPD measurement by FM-KPFM compared to the DC-bias spectroscopy method, and provide a comparison of AM-KPFM, AM-slope detection KPFM and FM-KPFM imaging resolution and accuracy. We will also discuss the distance dependence of the CPD as measured by FM-KPFM for both the PTCDA organic deposit and the NaCl substrate.

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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.282 · 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