MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949348317 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.01584

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

2018· preprint· en· W2949348317 on OpenAlexaff
Omur E. Dagdeviren, Yoichi Miyahara, Aaron Mascaro, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuning forkOscillation (cell signaling)CalibrationResonatorAmplitudeMaterials scienceNon-contact atomic force microscopyPiezoelectricityNoise (video)Resolution (logic)CantileverVibrationAcousticsOpticsOptoelectronicsConductive atomic force microscopyPhysicsAtomic force microscopyNanotechnologyChemistryComputer science

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, which is based on measuring the electrical energy input to maintain the oscillation amplitude constant. We demonstrate the application of the new technique with 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 thermal noise spectrum method for capsulated, 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 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 score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207