MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069754917 · doi:10.1063/1.1369637

“Zeptofarad” (10−21 F) resolution capacitance sensor for scanning capacitance microscopy

2001· article· en· W2069754917 on OpenAlexaff
Thị Thu Hường Trần, Derek R. Oliver, D. J. Thomson, Greg E. Bridges

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacitanceMaterials scienceScanning capacitance microscopyResonatorCapacitance probeScanning probe microscopyMicroscopeDifferential capacitanceOptoelectronicsResolution (logic)OpticsDielectricMicroscopyAmplifierScanning confocal electron microscopyPhysicsElectrodeCMOS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a sensor for use in a scanning capacitance microscope (SCM) that is capable of “zeptofarad” (10−21 F) capacitance measurement resolution in a 1 Hz bandwidth with a peak-to-peak sense voltage on the probe tip of no more than 300 mV. This sensitivity is based on experimental data and simulation results that are in excellent agreement. The complete sensor incorporates an oscillator (phase locked to a 10 MHz crystal oscillator), a coupled transmission line resonator, an amplifier, and a peak detector. The resonator is fabricated from copper-clad, low-loss dielectric material and its size is such that it is easily incorporated with a scanning probe microscope. The sensor’s use in the SCM enables capacitance resolution that has not previously been possible while retaining the instrumental advantages of imaging at low sense voltages. The performance of this sensor is discussed and compared to alternative scanning capacitance microscopy methodologies.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207