MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144325198 · doi:10.1109/tcapt.2005.848483

Four decades of research on thermal contact, gap, and joint resistance in microelectronics

2005· article· en· W2144325198 on OpenAlexaff
M. M. Yovanovich

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceIndentation hardnessThermal contact conductanceIndentationComposite materialContact resistanceBrinell scaleJoint (building)ThermalThermal resistanceStructural engineeringThermodynamicsEngineeringLayer (electronics)Microstructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Keynote Paper reviews and highlights over 40 years of research on solutions for steady-state and transient thermal constriction and spreading resistances, and thermomechanical models for contact, gap and joint resistances of joints formed by conforming rough surfaces, nonconforming smooth surfaces, and nonconforming rough surfaces. Microgap and macrogap thermal resistance and conductance models are reviewed, and important relations and correlation equations are presented. Contact microhardness, determined by Vickers indenters, are correlated and incorporated into the contact model for conforming rough surfaces. Microhardness parameters are correlated with Brinell hardness values. Elastoplastic contact models for joints formed by smooth sphere-smooth flat and conforming rough surfaces are presented. A simple thermomechanical model for microgaps occupied by oil, grease, grease filled with solid particles, and phase change materials such as paraffins is reviewed, and good agreement with recently published data is noted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations369
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging TechnologiesSame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207