MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215535582 · doi:10.1063/1.4944411

Transparent electrodes for high E-field production using a buried indium tin oxide layer

2016· article· en· W2215535582 on OpenAlexafffund
Will Gunton, Gene Polovy, Mariusz Semczuk, Kirk W. Madison

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIndium tin oxideMaterials scienceLayer (electronics)TinElectrodeIndiumOptoelectronicsOxideMetallurgyComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a design and characterization of optically transparent electrodes suitable for atomic and molecular physics experiments where high optical access is required. The electrodes can be operated in air at standard atmospheric pressure and do not suffer electrical breakdown even for electric fields far exceeding the dielectric breakdown of air. This is achieved by putting an indium tin oxide coated dielectric substrate inside a stack of dielectric substrates, which prevents ion avalanche resulting from Townsend discharge. With this design, we observe no arcing for fields of up to 120 kV/cm. Using these plates, we directly verify the production of electric fields up to 18 kV/cm inside a quartz vacuum cell by a spectroscopic measurement of the dc Stark shift of the 5(2)S(1/2) → 5(2)P(3/2) transition for a cloud of laser cooled rubidium atoms. We also report on the shielding of the electric field and on the residual electric fields that persist within the vacuum cell once the electrodes are discharged. In addition, we discuss observed atom loss that results from the motion of free charges within the vacuum. The observed asymmetry of these phenomena on the bias of the electrodes suggests that field emission of electrons within the vacuum is primarily responsible for these effects and may indicate a way of mitigating them.

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 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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207