Preface to special issue on Microscopy of Semiconducting Materials 2017 (MSM‐XX)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue contains selected invited and contributed presentations from the 20th international conference on ‘Microscopy of Semiconducting Materials’ (MSM-XX) which was held at Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford, 9–13 April 2017. The meeting was organised by the Royal Microscopical Society (RMS), supported by the Institute of Physics and the European Microscopy Society and kindly sponsored by five companies: Hitachi High-Technologies Europe, ISS Group Ltd, JEOL (UK) Ltd, Leica Microsystems and LOT - Quantum Design. This conference series has, since its inauguration by Anthony (‘Tony’) G Cullis in 1979, been held biennially in odd years and since 2003 alternates between locations in Oxford and Cambridge. It deals with advances in semiconductor studies carried out by all forms of electron and scanning probe microscopy with high spatial resolution, as well as new methods of imaging, diffraction, spectroscopy and signal quantification. This field has been flourishing for now more than three decades, due to the need for materials and device characterisation at the atomic level to continuously explore new materials and concepts for electronic and optoelectronic device applications. The meeting was attended by 69 delegates from 19 countries, comprising ten European countries as well as Australia, Canada, China, India, Israel, Japan, Russia, Singapore and the USA. We had a total of 71 contributions, which included 11 invited talks, 29 contributed conference talks, 4 company presentations and 27 posters. The dozen papers published in this special issue of Journal of Microscopy have each undergone full peer review by two or three reviewers, guaranteeing contributions are of high standard. Table 1 lists the materials studied in these articles and the methods used, from which it can be seen that a wide range of semiconductors have been covered, and that annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy (ADF-STEM) imaging was the most popular technique by far. Two students were awarded prizes for the high quality of their poster presentations. Their contributions on studies of core-shell nanowires (by James A Gott, University of Warwick, 1st place) and thin wetting layers (by Veronica Braza, Universidad de Cádiz, 2nd place) documented well the high standard of electron microscopy that is now achieved by young scientists. We express our gratitude to Lady Margaret Hall for provision of excellent accommodation, superb lecture facilities, including technical support, and perfect catering. We would like to also thank the staff of the RMS for their expert help in planning and running the meeting - in particular Karina Lang - and for their professional support and always joyful approach to anything. Finally, we are grateful to Jill Hobbs as the Editorial Office Manager for the Journal of Microscopy at Wiley, as well as to the numerous contributors and reviewers for helping us to put together this special issue. Lannon Quad courtyard at early morning and at night (left), poster session in the Pipe Partridge building along with tea served in the courtyard (right).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.304 | 0.140 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".