MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291234329 · doi:10.1063/1.4939912

A generic “micro-Stoney” method for the measurement of internal stress and elastic modulus of ultrathin films

2016· article· en· W2291234329 on OpenAlexaff
Audrey Favache, Sophie Ryelandt, Maxime Melchior, Gul Zeb, Pierre Carbonnelle, Jean‐Pierre Raskin, Thomas Pardoen

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Surface Polishing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMiQro Innovation Collaborative Centre
FundersWaalse Gewest
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialElastic modulusStress (linguistics)Internal stressModulusYoung's modulus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate measurement of the mechanical properties of ultra-thin films with thicknesses typically below 100 nm is a challenging issue with an interest in many fields involving coating technologies, microelectronics, and MEMS. A bilayer curvature based method is developed for the simultaneous determination of the elastic mismatch strain and Young's modulus of ultra-thin films. The idea is to deposit the film or coating on very thin cantilevers in order to amplify the curvature compared to a traditional "Stoney" wafer curvature test, hence the terminology "micro-Stoney." The data reduction is based on the comparison of the curvatures obtained for different supporting layer thicknesses. The elastic mismatch strain and Young's modulus are obtained from curvature measurements of cantilevers before and after the film deposition. The data reduction scheme relies on both analytical and finite element calculations, depending on the magnitude of the curvature. The experimental validation has been performed on ultra-thin low pressure chemical vapor deposited silicon nitride films with thickness ranging between 54 and 133 nm deposited on silicon cantilevers. The technique is sensitive to the cantilever geometry, in particular, to the thickness ratio and width/thickness ratio. Therefore, the precision in the determination of the latter quantities determines the accuracy on the extracted elastic mismatch strain and elastic modulus. The method can be potentially applied to films as thin as a few nanometers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicAdvanced Surface Polishing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207