MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116986666 · doi:10.1116/1.1627334

Investigation of substrate rotation at glancing incidence on thin-film morphology

2003· article· en· W2116986666 on OpenAlex
Brian Dick, M. J. Brett, T. Smy

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

VenueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing Measurement and Phenomena · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceRotation (mathematics)Substrate (aquarium)MicrostructureSiliconMorphology (biology)EvaporationThin filmOpticsAluminiumLimitingRotational speedCrystallographyComposite materialOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyGeometryChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Films deposited by evaporation at glancing angles form structures dependent on the speed of substrate rotation. If the substrate is held stationary, oblique columns are grown. For slow substrate rotation, helices are formed while faster rotation yields pillars. Silicon and silicon dioxide films grown under similar conditions were found to follow the typical morphological trend. In contrast, aluminum films formed by glancing angle deposition (GLAD) were found to be facetted structures which were peaked and isolated at high rotation speeds (dφ/dt>42 rpm), and flat for dφ/dt∼1.5 rpm. The results suggest that the primary limiting factor controlling GLAD microstructure growth may be a combination of both material temperature and crystal structure of the resulting film.

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)0.002
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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