MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054838641 · doi:10.1117/12.872967

Full-wafer thermal imaging in ultrahigh epitaxy tools

2010· article· en· W2054838641 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Paquette, André Fekecs, Badii Gsib, Hubert Pelletier, Richard Arès

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D IC and TSV technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaferMaterials scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionTemperature measurementGraphiteAbsorption (acoustics)OpticsCeramicThermalOptoelectronicsComposite materialPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface temperature distribution of a GaAs wafer, heated under vacuum, has been measured using a digital camera. A method is proposed to remove parasitic signals from the image. The accuracy of the thermal image is validated by comparing the results with a separate measurement from absorption band-edge spectroscopy (ABES). The thermal imaging data are observed to be within the experimental error from the ABES technique for the entire surface of the wafer. We observe a radial temperature profile with a center-to-edge difference that varies as a function of the central temperature. A difference of 25 °C is observed for a central temperature of 565 °C. This difference increases with the wafer temperature, confirming that it is due to a net heat flux escaping the wafer by its edge, which is in contact with a graphite holder. Based on these results, a solution is proposed in which the graphite wafer holder is replaced by a ceramic version.

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 score0.007

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topic3D IC and TSV technologiesFrench-language works237,207