MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113303754 · doi:10.1002/sia.6921

Part II: The influence of substrate type, film thickness, and primary ion type on molecular weight characterization of linear polydimethyl siloxane films by secondary ion mass spectrometry

2020· article· en· W3113303754 on OpenAlexaff
Paul R. Vlasak, Michaeleen L. Pacholski, Joo Kang, Kenneth L. Kearns, Carl Reinhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsDow Chemical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecondary ion mass spectrometrySiloxaneAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Substrate (aquarium)IonThin filmChemistryCharacterization (materials science)Materials scienceComposite materialNanotechnologyChromatographyOrganic chemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our previous paper, we showed that the molecular weight of linear, trimethyl‐terminated polydimethyl siloxane (PDMS) can be estimated using a standard curve by measuring PDMS endgroup‐related signal normalized to backbone‐related signal for PDMS films that are thick relative to the information depth of SIMS. Within industrial surface analysis laboratories, it is more likely that PDMS fluid is encountered as a thin film, perhaps as a contaminant or an additive that has exuded from a bulk material. This paper explores the influence of PDMS film thickness, substrate type, and primary ion projectile type (cluster vs. monoatomic) on the ratio of measured endgroup:backbone peak area ratio. These factors are shown to have a significant influence on the measured spectra, and these effects should be carefully considered before making molecular weight estimates of PDMS based on SIMS peak ratios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207