MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128251794 · doi:10.1002/sia.2538

ARXPS investigation of diffusion as a limiting process in the incorporation of adatoms into polystyrene surfaces treated by nitrogen plasmas

2007· article· en· W2128251794 on OpenAlexafffund
R.W. Paynter, David Roy-Guay, Gabriel Parent, M. Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolystyreneNitrogenPlasmaDiffusionLimitingChemistryPenetration (warfare)Surface diffusionAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Penetration depthPolymerThermodynamicsPhysical chemistryChromatographyAdsorptionOrganic chemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Polystyrene films were exposed to nitrogen plasmas for periods up to 4 min. ARXPS measurements revealed the presence of oxygen and nitrogen in the surface because of the plasma treatment. The depth profiles of these adatoms were determined by fitting a Thomas–Windle model profile to the data. As found previously, the best‐fit depth profiles resembled a step function, consistent with case II diffusion. However, the depth of penetration of the adatom species into the polymer surface was not found to vary with plasma duration, which is inconsistent with Case II diffusion, and provides evidence that diffusion processes do not limit the loading of adatom species into the surface during nitrogen plasma treatment. A possible reason for the generation of erroneous step function depth profiles is discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207