Intercomparison of silicon dioxide thickness measurements made by multiple techniques: The route to accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot project has been launched under the auspices of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance to evaluate the quantification for SiO2 on (100) and (111) Si in the thickness range 1.5–8 nm. Wafers and methodologies have been carefully prepared. Forty-five sets of measurements have been made in different laboratories using eight methods: medium energy ion scattering spectrometry (MEIS), nuclear reaction analysis (NRA), Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS), elastic backscattering spectrometry (EBS), x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), ellipsometry, grazing incidence x-ray reflectometry (GIXRR), neutron reflectometry (NR), and transmission electron microscopy. The results have been assessed, against the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) XPS data, using d(respondee)=md(NPL)+c. All show excellent linearity. The main sets correlate with the NPL data with average root-mean-square scatters of 0.13 nm with half being <0.1 nm. Each set allows the relative scaling constant, m, and the zero thickness offset, c to be determined. Each method has 0
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".