Electron interference from an amorphous thin film on a crystal transmission electron microscopy specimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electron intensity of a beam from an amorphous surface layer on a crystal transmission electron microscopy (TEM) specimen has been found to have sufficient coherence to produce fringes in interferograms, created by interfering two electron diffracted beams from the crystal, using a method of electron interference referred to as diffracted beam interferometry. This interference method involves amplitude splitting of the electron beam by means of a crystal with a thin amorphous layer on its surface. The amorphous intensity is transferred along with the crystal's Bragg diffracted beams and is then self-interfered when the crystal's Bragg diffracted beams are interfered by an electron biprism. The interference fringes in the interferograms exist in low to high electron scattering angles. The spatial frequency of the amorphous intensity fringes depends on the Bragg angle of the crystal's interfered diffracted beams. It is shown that the absolute phase of the amorphous intensity is possibly obtained using a Cs-corrected TEM and two interfering diffracted beams having equal but opposite phases. This method of interference is a good step towards measuring the phase of amorphous materials that is useful in determining their complex atomic structures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".