Acoustic subsurface-atomic force microscopy: Three-dimensional imaging at the nanoscale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of acoustic subsurface atomic force microscopy, which promises three-dimensional imaging with single-digit nanometer resolution by the introduction of ultrasound actuations to a conventional atomic force microscope, has come a long way since its inception in the early 1990s. Recent advances provide a quantitative understanding of the different experimentally observed contrast mechanisms, which paves the way for future applications. In this Perspective, we first review the different subsurface atomic force microscope modalities: ultrasonic force microscopy, atomic force acoustic microscopy, heterodyne force microscopy, mode-synthesizing atomic force microscopy, and near-field picosecond ultrasonic microscopy. Then, we highlight and resolve a debate existing in the literature on the importance of the chosen ultrasound excitation frequencies with respect to the resonance frequencies of the cantilever and the observed contrast mechanisms. Finally, we discuss remaining open problems in the field and motivate the importance of new actuators, near-field picosecond ultrasonics, and integration with other techniques to achieve multi-functional non-destructive three-dimensional imaging at the nanoscale.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it