MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990016752 · doi:10.1515/nanoph-2019-0385

Helium focused ion beam direct milling of plasmonic heptamer‐arranged nanohole arrays

2019· article· en· W2990016752 on OpenAlexaff
Choloong Hahn, Akram Hajebifard, Pierre Berini

Bibliographic record

VenueNanophotonics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFocused ion beamPlasmonBeam (structure)FabricationIon milling machineOpticsOptoelectronicsIon beamIonNanotechnologyChemistryLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We fabricate plasmonic heptamer‐arranged nanohole (HNH) arrays by helium (He) focused ion beam (HeFIB) milling, which is a resist‐free, maskless, direct‐write method. The small He + beam spot size and high milling resolution achieved by the gas field‐ionization source used in our HeFIB allows the milling of high aspect ratio (4:1) nanoscale features in metal, such as HNHs incorporating 15 nm walls of high verticality between holes in a 55‐nm‐thick gold film. Drifts encountered during the HeFIB milling of large arrays, due to sample stage vibrations or He beam instability, were compensated by a drift correction technique based on in situ He ion imaging of alignment features. Our drift correction technique yielded 20 nm maximum dislocation of HNHs, with 6.9 and 4.6 nm average dislocations along the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. The measured optical resonance spectra of the fabricated plasmonic HNH arrays are presented to support the fabrication technique. Defects associated with HeFIB milling are also discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanophotonicsSame topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207