MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963050880 · doi:10.1063/1.5063992

Eliminating the effect of acoustic noise on cantilever spring constant calibration

2018· article· en· W2963050880 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Mascaro, Yoichi Miyahara, Omur E. Dagdeviren, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCantileverSpring (device)CalibrationConstant (computer programming)Noise (video)Non-contact atomic force microscopyAcousticsMicroscopeWork (physics)Materials scienceResonance (particle physics)OpticsAtomic force microscopyPhysicsNanotechnologyKelvin probe force microscopeComputer scienceComposite materialAtomic physicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common use for atomic force microscopy is to quantify local forces through tip-sample interactions between the probe tip and a sample surface. The accuracy of these measurements depends on the accuracy to which the cantilever spring constant is known. Recent work has demonstrated that the measured spring constant of a cantilever can vary up to a factor of two, even for the exact same cantilever measured by different users on different microscopes. Here we demonstrate that a standard method for calibrating the spring constant (using the oscillations due to thermal energy) is susceptible to ambient noise, which can alter the result significantly. We demonstrate a new step-by-step method to measure the spring constant by actively driving the cantilever to measure the resonance frequency and quality factor, giving results that are unaffected by acoustic noise. Our method can be performed rapidly on any atomic force microscope without any expensive additional hardware.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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