MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063605609 · doi:10.1115/imece2006-14938

Modal Interactions in Contact-Mode Atomic Force Microscopes

2006· article· en· W2063605609 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

VenueApplied Mechanics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffnessAtomic force microscopyModalResonance (particle physics)Excited stateMode (computer interface)Normal modeNon-contact atomic force microscopyMaterials scienceModal analysisOpticsNoise (video)ThermalPhysicsAcousticsVibrationKelvin probe force microscopeAtomic physicsNanotechnologyThermodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atomic force microscopes (AFM) are used to estimate material and surface properties. When using contact-mode AFM, the specimen or the probe is excited near a natural frequency of the system to estimate the linear coefficient of the contact stiffness. Because higher modes offer lower thermal noise, higher quality factors, and higher sensitivity to stiff samples, their use in this procedure is more desirable. However, these modes are candidates for internal resonances, where the energy being fed into one mode may be channeled to another mode. If such interactions are ignored, the results obtained from the probe may be distorted. The method of multiple scales is used to derive an approximate analytical expression to the probe response in the presence of two-to-one autoparametric resonance between the second and third modes. We examine characteristics of this solution in relation to a single-mode response and consider its implications in AFM measurements.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.267
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