MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116729685 · doi:10.1039/b915605d

Control of the average spacing between aligned gold nanoparticles by varying the FIB dose

2010· article· en· W2116729685 on OpenAlexafffund
Asad Rezaee, Anne Kathrena A. Aliganga, Laura C. Pavelka, Silvia Mittler

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSilaneScanning electron microscopeFocused ion beamMonolayerColloidal goldMaterials scienceNanoparticleSiliconNanotechnologySecondary ion mass spectrometryChemical vapor depositionElectron-beam lithographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ResistIonChemical engineeringChemistryOptoelectronicsLayer (electronics)Composite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a new method to align gold nanoparticles (Au NPs), based on three well-known techniques: self-assembled monolayer (SAM) formation, focused ion beam (FIB) lithography, and organo-metallic chemical vapour deposition (OMCVD). Silicon substrates are coated with CH(3)-terminated silane SAMs as resists. A fine beam of Ga(+) ions, applying different doses, damages/removes these SAMs to correspondingly form a pattern containing sets of lines. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectroscopy (ToF-SIMS) are used to study the SAM removal process. The FIB nano-lithographically patterned SAMs are re-filled with an SH-terminated silane SAM. An OMCVD process is carried out to grow Au NPs onto the SH-groups in the lines. The average spacing between the Au NPs is demonstrated to be controlled by varying the FIB dose. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image analysis indicates that the average spacing decreases exponentially with increasing the dose, up to a predefined threshold. In addition, the formation of OMCVD Au NPs spacing and its dose-dependence in the absence of the SH-terminated SAMs is studied.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207