MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136489152 · doi:10.1504/ijat.2010.032840

Numerical and experiment analysis of nanosecond pulsed laser drilling with dual frequency

2010· article· en· W2136489152 on OpenAlex
Jasjit Singh Mann, Avinash Parashar, Ankur Shah, N.R. Sivakumar

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Abrasive Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanosecondDual (grammatical number)LaserDrillingOpticsPhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanosecond pulsed laser drilling is one of the most common material removal processes. Dual focus laser micro drilling is high aspect ratio micro drilling techniques. Tan et al. (2003) proposed the concept of dual focus with dual frequency femtosecond laser micro drilling on PMMA. An investigation of dual frequency micro drilling with nanosecond pulsed laser on 500 μm silicon wafer has been reported in this paper with mathematical modelling supported with experimental results. Numerical modelling has been done to study the effect of dual frequency drilling with respect to intensity distribution and resultant effect on the focused spot size. Experiments were done with single and dual wavelengths with 532 nm and 1,064 nm at different pulse energies and the results were found in reasonable match with theoretical values.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.232 · 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