MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794838921

The influence of the gas environment on morphology and chemical composition of surfaces micro-machined with a femtosecond laser

2014· article· en· W2794838921 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge Lehr, F. De Marchi, Luke Matus, Jennifer MacLeod, Federico Rosei, Anne‐Marie Kietzig

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool of Chemistry, Physics & Mechanical Engineering; Science & Engineering Faculty · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTinLaserFemtosecondMachiningHeliumFabricationIsotropyTitaniumOpticsChemistryMetallurgy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the influence of different gas environments on the fabrication of surfaces, homogeneously covered with equally sized and spaced micro-structures. Two types of structures have been successfully micro-machined with a femtosecond laser on titanium surfaces in various atmospheres. The surface chemistry of samples machined in oxygen and helium shows TiO2, while machining in nitrogen leads to an additional share of TiN. The actual surface structure was found to vary significantly as a function of the gas environment. We found that the ablated particles and their surface triggered two consecutive events: The optical properties of the gas environment became non-isotropic which then led to the pulse intensity being redistributed throughout the cross section of the laser beam. Additionally, the effective intensity was further reduced for TiN surfaces due to TiN's high reflectivity. Thus, the settings for the applied raster-scanning machining method had to be adjusted for each gas environment to produce comparable structures. In contrast to previous studies, where only noble gases were found suitable to produce homogeneous patches, we obtained them in an oxygen environment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool of Chemistry, Physics & Mechanical Engineering; Science & Engineering FacultySame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207