MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102519104 · doi:10.1109/nanoel.2006.1609768

Enhanced Control of Morphology in Thin Film Nanostructure Arrays

2006· article· en· W2102519104 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas A. Gish, Mark A. Summers, Martin O. Jensen, Michael J. Brett

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies - Nanoelectronics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanostructureHillockSubstrate (aquarium)Thin filmWaferTilt (camera)SiliconOpticsTetragonal crystal systemRotation (mathematics)OptoelectronicsNanotechnologyComposite materialCrystallographyCrystal structureChemistryComputer sciencePhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glancing angle deposition (GLAD) was used to grow thin films of silicon and titanium dioxide slanted post nanostructures onto periodically patterned substrates. The patterned substrates consisted of tetragonal arrays of small hillocks with periodicities of 100, 200, and 300 nm. An advanced substrate rotation algorithm called PhiSweep was used during the deposition. The PhiSweep algorithm consists of rotating the substrate back and forth such that the arriving vapour flux direction alternates from either side of desired column tilt direction. This reduces the anisotropy of the shadowing conditions, which diminishes column fanning. The tilt angle of the columns is affected by the PhiSweep parameters, which is important in applications such as square spiral photonic crystals. This relation is derived and confirmed with tilt angle measurements of the slanted post films. The films grown using the PhiSweep method were compared with similar films grown using traditional GLAD. The PhiSweep technique produced films which conformed to the initial periodic pattern much better than the films grown with traditional GLAD, enabling the growth of nanostructure arrays with smaller periodicities.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies - NanoelectronicsSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207