MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078000007 · doi:10.1163/156856108x396264

Removing 20 nm Particles Using a Supersonic Argon Particle Beam Generated with a Contoured Laval Nozzle

2009· article· en· W2078000007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jin Won Lee, Kwangseok Hwang, Kihyun Lee, Min-Young Yi, Mi‐Jeong Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adhesion Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)Beam (structure)Stagnation pressureRange (aeronautics)Particle beamParticle sizeSupersonic speedParticle velocityCeramicArgonComposite materialMechanicsOpticsAtomic physicsPhysicsChemistryThermodynamicsMach number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A cryogenic particle beam is an effective means of removing nano-sized contaminant particles, but the particle beam generated with a simple-hole nozzle has not been successful in removing particles smaller than 30 nm. Based on molecular dynamics (MD) simulation results that smaller cryogenic particles moving at a higher velocity are more effective in removing contaminant particles in the 10 nm range, a contoured Laval nozzle of a particular expansion angle and length was used in this study, instead of the simple-hole nozzle, to generate particle beams of high intensity and controlled size moving at high velocities. A variety of particle size and velocity were obtained by controlling the stagnation pressure/temperature and the back pressure, and using Laval nozzles with differing throat sizes and expansion angles. The new particle beams could remove almost completely a variety of ceramic and Cu particles, down to 20 nm size range, on a flat surface or in trenches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adhesion Science and TechnologySame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207