MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Xe and Ga FIB Differ in Inducing Lateral Damage on TEM Samples

2015· article· en· W2342102170 on OpenAlexaff
Tomáš Hrnčíř, Jozef Vincenc Oboňa, Martin Petrenec, Jan Michalička, Christian Lång

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - International Symposium for Testing and Failure Analysis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsOxford Instruments (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocused ion beamMaterials scienceIon beamBeam (structure)PolishingLamella (surface anatomy)Amorphous solidIonIon beam depositionBeam energyOpticsComposite materialChemistryCrystallographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reducing FIB induced damage on TEM samples is very important in order to preserve the sample structure, especially on modern semiconductor devices. We have compared the damage caused by Ga ion beam to our measurements of the damage caused by Xe ion beam and came to the conclusion that Xe ion beam induced damage is significantly lower at 30 keV beam energy. This has been proven by several independent analytical methods. Our results show that TEM sample preparation by Xe ion beam causes less amorphous damage and increase the quality of the lamella and in many cases it will allow to prepare the lamella by finishing it even at 30 keV, without the final cleaning step at the low beam energy. Final polishing step by Xe beam at beam energy 3 keV further reduces the amorphous layer, but the difference against Ga beam is not so significant like at 30 keV.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings - International Symposium for Testing and Failure AnalysisSame topicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure AnalysisFrench-language works237,207