MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059594213 · doi:10.1116/1.2731330

Nanoscale resist morphologies of dense gratings using electron-beam lithography

2007· article· en· W2059594213 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

VenueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing Measurement and Phenomena · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Photolithography Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyApplied Nanotools (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistElectron-beam lithographyMaterials scienceLithographyNanoscopic scaleCathode rayNanolithographyNanotechnologyNanostructureOpticsResolution (logic)OptoelectronicsElectronFabricationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report a systematic investigation, both by experiment and by numerical modeling, of resolution limits for dense nanoscale gratings fabricated in polymethylmethacrylate through low-energy electron-beam lithography (EBL) using 10keV electrons. In particular, they have studied the resist morphologies that develop in various exposure regimes for gratings with periods from 20to100nm and categorized the potential sources of resist damage in such gratings. Through comparison of their experimental and numerical results, they have elucidated the major mechanisms that limit the EBL process resolution at the stages of exposure and resist development. The authors have also suggested semiempirical criteria to predict the risk of resist damage when fabricating dense nanostructures.

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)0.002
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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