Mechanical characteristics of optical coatings prepared by various techniques: a comparative study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Good performance of optical coatings depends on the appropriate combination of optical and mechanical properties. Therefore, successful applications require good understanding of the relationship between optical microstructural and mechanical characteristics and film stability. In addition, there is a lack of standard mechanical tests that allow one to compare film properties measured in different laboratories. We give an overview of the methodology of mechanical measurements suitable for optical coatings; this includes depth-sensing indentation, scratch resistance, friction, abrasion and wear testing, and stress and adhesion evaluation. We used the techniques mentioned above in the same laboratory to systematically compare the mechanical behavior of frequently used high- and low-index materials, namely, TiO2, Ta2O5, and SiO2, prepared by different complementary techniques. They include ion-beam-assisted deposition by electron-beam evaporation, magnetron sputtering, dual-ion-beam sputtering, plasma-enhanced chemical-vapor deposition, and filtered cathodic arc deposition. The mechanical properties are correlated with the film microstructure that is inherently related to energetic conditions during film growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it