MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087248384 · doi:10.1116/1.3517478

Critical review: Plasma-surface reactions and the spinning wall method

2011· article· en· W2087248384 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

VenueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology A Vacuum Surfaces and Films · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmaAuger electron spectroscopyDesorptionChemistryQuadrupole mass analyzerVacuum chamberAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Substrate (aquarium)Plasma cleaningMass spectrometrySputteringAtomic physicsMaterials scienceThin filmNanotechnologyComposite materialPhysicsAdsorptionChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews methods for studying reactions of atoms and small molecules on substrates and chamber walls that are immersed in a plasma, a relatively unexplored, yet very important area of plasma science and technology. Emphasis is placed on the “spinning wall” technique. With this method, a cylindrical section of the wall of the plasma reactor is rotated, and the surface is periodically exposed to the plasma and then to a differentially pumped mass spectrometer, to an Auger electron spectrometer, and, optionally, to a beam of additional reactants or surface coatings. Reactants impinging on the surface can stick and react over time scales that are comparable to the substrate rotation period, which can be varied from ∼0.5 to 40 ms. Langmuir–Hinshelwood reaction probabilities can be derived from a measurement of the absolute desorption product yields as a function of the substrate rotation frequency. Auger electron spectroscopy allows the plasma-immersed surface to be monitored during plasma operation. This measurement is critical, since wall “conditioning” in the plasma changes the reaction probabilities. Mass spectrometer cracking patterns are used to identify simple desorption products such as Cl2, O2, ClO, and ClO2. Desorption products also produce a measurable pressure rise in the second differentially pumped chamber that can be used to obtain absolute desorption yields. The surface can also be coated with films that can be deposited by sputtering a target in the plasma or by evaporating material from a Knudsen cell in the differentially pumped wall chamber. Here, the authors review this new spinning wall technique in detail, describing both experimental issues and data analysis methods and interpretations. The authors have used the spinning wall method to study the recombination of Cl and O on plasma-conditioned anodized aluminum and stainless steel surfaces. In oxygen or chlorine plasmas, these surfaces become coated with a layer containing Si, Al, and O, due to slow erosion of the reactor materials, in addition to Cl in chlorine plasmas. Similar, low recombination probabilities were found for Cl and O on anodized Al versus stainless steel surfaces, consistent with the similar chemical composition of the layer that forms on these surfaces after long exposure to the plasma. In chlorine plasmas, weakly adsorbed Cl2 was found to inhibit Cl recombination, hence the Cl recombination probability decreases with increasing Cl2-to-Cl number density ratios in the plasma. In mixed Cl2/O2 plasmas, Cl and O recombine to form Cl2 and O2 with probabilities that are similar to those in pure chlorine or oxygen plasmas, but in addition, ClO and ClO2 form on the surface and desorb from the wall. These and other results, including the catalytic enhancement of O recombination by monolayer amounts of Cu, are reviewed.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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