MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152853174 · doi:10.3390/nano11051069

On the Insignificant Role of the Oxidation Process on Ultrafast High-Spatial-Frequency LIPSS Formation on Tungsten

2021· article· en· W3152853174 on OpenAlexaff
Priya Dominic, Florent Bourquard, Stéphanie Reynaud, Arnaud Weck, Jean‐Philippe Colombier, Florence Garrelie

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTungstenArgonLaserSapphireFemtosecondSputteringIrradiationOxygenOxideUltrashort pulseAmbient pressureAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsNanotechnologyThin filmMetallurgyAtomic physicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of surface oxides on the formation of laser-induced periodic surface structures (LIPSS) is regularly advocated to favor or even trigger the formation of high-spatial-frequency LIPSS (HSFL) during ultrafast laser-induced nano-structuring. This paper reports the effect of the laser texturing environment on the resulting surface oxides and its consequence for HSFLs formation. Nanoripples are produced on tungsten samples using a Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser under atmospheres with varying oxygen contents. Specifically, ambient, 10 mbar pressure of air, nitrogen and argon, and 10−7 mbar vacuum pressure are used. In addition, removal of any native oxide layer is achieved using plasma sputtering prior to laser irradiation. The resulting HSFLs have a sub-100 nm periodicity and sub 20 nm amplitude. The experiments reveal the negligible role of oxygen during the HSFL formation and clarifies the significant role of ambient pressure in the resulting HSFLs period.

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 score0.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207