MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900657848 · doi:10.1088/1361-6528/aaf353

A generalized shapelet-based method for analysis of nanostructured surface imaging

2018· article· en· W2900657848 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Akdeniz, Daniel J. Lizotte, Nasser Mohieddin Abukhdeir

Bibliographic record

VenueNanotechnology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicBlock Copolymer Self-Assembly
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationCompute Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanoscopic scaleLithographyCharacterization (materials science)NanotechnologyTransmission electron microscopyElectron tomographyScanning transmission electron microscopyOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The determination of quantitative structure-property relations is a vital but challenging task for nanostructured materials research due to the presence of large-scale spatially varying patterns resulting from nanoscale processes such as self-assembly and nano-lithography. Focusing on nanostructured surfaces, recent advances have been made in automated quantification methods for orientational and translational order using shapelet functions, originally developed for analysis of images of galaxies, as a reduced-basis for surface pattern structure. In this work, a method combining shapelet functions and machine learning is developed and applied to a representative set of images of self-assembled surfaces from experimental characterization techniques including scanning electron miscroscopy, atomic force microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. The method is shown to be computationally efficient and able to quantify salient pattern features including deformation, defects, and grain boundaries from a broad range of patterns typical of self-assembly processes.

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)0.001
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanotechnologySame topicBlock Copolymer Self-AssemblyFrench-language works237,207