MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891768844 · doi:10.1063/1.5061831

Calibration of the oscillation amplitude of electrically excited scanning probe microscopy sensors

2019· article· en· W2891768844 on OpenAlexafffund
Omur E. Dagdeviren, Yoichi Miyahara, Aaron Mascaro, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOscillation (cell signaling)Tuning forkCalibrationAmplitudeResonatorPiezoelectricityMaterials scienceNon-contact atomic force microscopyNoise (video)OpticsAcousticsVibrationPhysicsOptoelectronicsMicroscopyKelvin probe force microscope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is an analytical surface characterization tool which can reveal a sample's topography with high spatial resolution while simultaneously probing tip-sample interactions. Local measurement of chemical properties with high-resolution has gained much popularity in recent years with advances in dynamic AFM methodologies. A calibration factor is required to convert the electrical readout to a mechanical oscillation amplitude in order to extract quantitative information about the surface. We propose a new calibration technique for the oscillation amplitude of electrically driven probes using the principle of energy balance. Our technique relies on the measurement of the energy input to maintain the oscillation amplitude constant. With the measurement of the energy input to the probe, a mechanical oscillation amplitude is calculated and a calibration factor to convert the electrical readout in volts to a mechanical oscillation amplitude in Ångströms is obtained. We demonstrate the application of the new technique with a quartz tuning fork including the qPlus configuration, while the same principle can be applied to other piezoelectric resonators such as length extension resonators or piezoelectric cantilevers. The calibration factor obtained by this technique is found to be in agreement with using the thermal noise spectrum method for capsulated and decapsulated tuning forks and tuning forks in the qPlus configuration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207