MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057075743 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.71.193407

From tunneling to point contact: Correlation between forces and current

2005· article· en· W2057075743 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Sun, S. Schär, Anne-Sophie Lucier, Yoichi Miyahara, Peter Grütter, Werner A. Hofer

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum tunnellingScanning tunneling microscopeCondensed matter physicsContext (archaeology)Conductive atomic force microscopyCoupling (piping)Materials scienceCurrent (fluid)PhysicsAb initioElectrical contactsDissipationConductanceAtomic force microscopyNanotechnologyQuantum mechanicsThermodynamicsOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a combined ultrahigh vacuum scanning tunneling and atomic force microscope (STM/AFM) to study W tip-Au(111) sample interactions in the regimes from weak coupling to strong interaction and simultaneously measure current changes from picoamperes to microamperes. Close correlation between conductance and interaction forces in a STM configuration was observed. In particular, the electrical and mechanical points of contact are determined based on the observed barrier collapse and adhesive bond formation, respectively. These points of contact, as defined by force and current measurements, coincide within measurement error. Ab initio calculations of the current as a function of distance in the tunneling regime is in quantitative agreement with experimental results. The obtained results are discussed in the context of dissipation in noncontact AFM as well as electrical contact formation in molecular electronics.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207