MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483561474 · doi:10.1117/3.601520.ch8

Confronting the Diffraction Limit

2009· book-chapter· en· W2483561474 on OpenAlexaff
Harry Levinson

Bibliographic record

VenueSPIE eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpticsDiffractionPhysicsBeam (structure)GratingWavelengthDiffraction gratingLight beam

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As k 1 factors [Eq. (2.8)] fall below 0.8, a number of effects become observable that are not seen when k 1 is larger. Processes with small values of k 1 began to appear in the mid-1990s, and are quite common today, as seen from Table 8.1. Some of the effects seen in patterns generated with low-k 1 processes are discussed in this chapter. Several techniques also described—such as off-axis illumination and phase-shifting masks—have been developed to address the shortcomings of optical imaging as feature sizes become smaller than the wavelength of light. Methods to improve image contrast that involve modification of the mask or illumination are referred to collectively as resolution enhancement techniques (RETs) and are discussed in this chapter. 8.1 Off-axis illumination As discussed earlier, light (coherent) that illuminates a grating is diffracted in very specific directions [Eq. (2.1)]. For normally incident light, sufficiently small dimensions result in situations where all beams except the zero-order are diffracted outside the entrance pupil of the imaging optics (Fig. 8.1). In this case, no pattern is formed, because a single beam is a plane wave, containing no spatial information, as explained in Chapter 2. For normally incident (“on-axis”) illumination, the grating is not imaged when the pitch is too small, because only a single beam, the zero-order beam, is transmitted through the lens. This illustrates the limitation to resolution imposed by diffraction.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPIE eBooksSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207