MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946141944 · doi:10.1039/c9nr03730f

Investigating the detection limit of subsurface holes under graphite with atomic force acoustic microscopy

2019· article· en· W2946141944 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Yip, Teng Cui, Yu Sun, Tobin Filleter

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGraphiteAtomic force microscopyLimit (mathematics)Detection limitMaterials scienceNanotechnologyComposite materialChemistryChromatographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subsurface imaging capabilities of atomic force acoustic microscopy (AFAM) was investigated by imaging graphite flakes suspended over holes in a silicon dioxide substrate. The graphite thickness and the hole size were varied to determine the detection limit on the maximum graphite thickness and the smallest detectable hole size. Parameters including operating frequency, eigenmode, contact force, and cantilever stiffness were investigated for their influence of defect detection. AFAM was reliably able to detect 2.5 μm diameter holes through a maximum graphite thickness of 570 nm and sub 100 nm holes through 140 nm of graphite. The smallest detectable defect size was a 50 nm hole covered by an 80 nm thick graphite flake. Increasing the graphite thickness and decreasing the hole size both resulted in a decrease in subsurface contrast. However, the non-linear trend observed from increasing the graphite thickness indicates thickness has a greater effect on subsurface defect detection than variations in defect size. Through investigating various parameters, we have found certain cases to increase the observed contrast of the embedded subsurface holes, however the smallest detectable defect size remained the same. This technique's ability to reveal sub 100 nm defects buried under graphite has previously only been demonstrated in much softer polymer systems.

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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscaleSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207