Focus Ion Beam Preparation of Transmission Electron Microscope Sample in Polymer Clay Nanocomposite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Key Words: Focus Ion Beam Preparation of TransmissionElectron Microscope Sample in PolymerClay Nanocomposite Seyed Ali Hashemi 1* , Razi Sahraian 1 , Pierre G. Lafleur 2 , and Karen Stoeffler 2 (1) Department of Composite, Paint and Coating, Iran Polymer and PetrochemicalInstitute, P.O. Box: 14965/115, Tehran, Iran(2) Center for Applied Research on Polymers and Composites (CREPEC),Department of Chemical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique, P.O. Box: 6079, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Received 13 November 2005; accepted 11 June 2006 T his paper deals with preparation of PE clay nanocomposite specimen for trans-mission electron microscopy (TEM) and studying the difference between disper-sion of clay in low density polyethylene using poly(hydrogen methyl siloxane)(PHMS) as coupling agent and untreated one. Argon ion milling is the conventionalmeans by which film sections are thinned to electron transparency for TEM analysis,but this technique exhibits significant problems. In particular, selective thinning andimaging of sub-micrometer inclusions during sample milling are highly problematic.We have achieved successful results using the focused ion beam (FIB) lift-out tech-nique, which utilizes a 30 kV Ga
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".