Closed-Cell Foam Skin Thickness Measurement Using a Scanning Electron Microscope
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
Closed cell polymer foam skin thickness can be assessed by taking backscatter electron (BSE) images in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at a series of accelerating voltages. Under a given set of experimental conditions, the electron beam mostly passes through thin polymer skin cell walls. That cell appears dark compared to adjacent thicker-skinned cells. Higher accelerating voltages lead to a thicker skin being penetrated. Monte Carlo modeling of beam-sample interactions indicates that at 5 keV, skin less than ∼0.5 μm in thickness will appear dark, whereas imaging at 30 keV allows skin thicknesses up to ∼4 μm to be identified. The distribution of skin thickness can be assessed over square millimeters of foam surface in this manner. Qualitative comparisons of the skin thicknesses of samples can be made with a simple visual inspection of the images. A semiquantitative comparison is possible by applying image analysis. The proposed method is applied to two example foams. Characterizing foam skin thickness by this method is possible using any SEM that is capable of collecting useful BSE images over a range of accelerating voltages. Imaging in low vacuum, where an electrically conductive metal coating is not required, leads to more sensitivity in skin thickness characterization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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