MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154288224 · doi:10.2320/matertrans.mra2008087

Microelectronic Wire Bonding with Insulated Au Wire: Effects of Process Parameters on Insulation Removal and Crescent Bonding

2008· article· en· W2154288224 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMATERIALS TRANSACTIONS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWire bondingMaterials scienceComposite materialPerpendicularCoatingMicroelectronicsMetallurgyElectrical engineeringOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characteristics of the crescent bond process with insulated Au wire are investigated. Au wire with a sub-micron thick insulation coating is bonded on standard Ag plated leadframe diepads at 493 K. The wire loops are oriented perpendicular to the ultrasonic horn. The pull force obtained with a basic bonding process of insulated Au wire and bare Au wire are optimized by iteration and compared. Subsequently, the process is modified for the application with insulated wire. To increase the pull force an insulation layer removing stage (cleaning stage) is inserted before the bonding stage. The cleaning stage consists of a scratching motion (shift) toward to the ball bond in combination with ultrasound. The pull force obtained in this way with the insulated wire is 90.1±7.9 mN which is 2.4±2.0 mN larger than that obtained with bare Au wire.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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