MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092276082 · doi:10.1002/ppap.201200029

Atmospheric Pressure Low Temperature Direct Plasma Technology: Status and Challenges for Thin Film Deposition

2012· article· en· W2092276082 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

VenuePlasma Processes and Polymers · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlasma Applications and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasma-enhanced chemical vapor depositionThin filmAtmospheric-pressure plasmaAtmospheric pressureDeposition (geology)Materials sciencePlasmaChemical vapor depositionNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsEngineering physicsEngineeringMeteorologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the last ten years, expansion of atmospheric pressure plasma solutions for surface treatment of materials has been remarkable, however direct plasma technology for thin film deposition needs still great effort. The objective of this paper is to establish the state of the art on scientific and technologic locks, which have to be opened to consider direct atmospheric pressure plasma‐enhanced chemical vapor deposition (AP‐PECVD) a viable option for industrial application. Basic scientific principles to understand and optimize an AP‐PECVD process are summarized. Laboratory reactor configurations are reviewed. Reference points for the design and use of AP‐PECVD reactors according to the desired thin film properties are given. Finally, solutions to avoid powder formation and to increase the thin film growth rate are discussed. magnified image

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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