Study on the mechanism of Si–glass–Si two step anodic bonding process
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Si–glass–Si was successfully bonded together through a two-step anodic bonding process. The bonding current in each step of the two-step bonding process was investigated, and found to be quite different. The first bonding current decreased quickly to a relatively small value, but for the second bonding step, there were two current peaks; the current first decreased, then increased, and then decreased again. The second current peak occurred earlier with higher temperature and voltage. The two-step anodic bonding process was investigated in terms of bonding current. SEM and EDS tests were conducted to investigate the interfacial structure of the Si–glass–Si samples. The two bonding interfaces were almost the same, but after an etching process, transitional layers could be found in the bonding interface and a deeper trench with a thickness of ~1.5 µ m could be found in the second bonding interface. Atomic force microscopy mapping results indicated that sodium precipitated from the back of the glass, which makes the roughness of the surface become coarse. Tensile tests indicated that the fracture occurred at the glass substrate and that the bonding strength increased with the increment of bonding temperature and voltage with the maximum strength of 6.4 MPa.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it