MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173361515 · doi:10.82308/52339

Fabrication of diffractive optical elements by electron beam lithography

2011· article· en· W3173361515 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced optical system design
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsFabricationLithographyElectron-beam lithographyOpticsMaterials scienceX-ray lithographyCathode rayStencil lithographyNext-generation lithographyBeam (structure)OptoelectronicsPhysicsResistElectronNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Éléments d'optiques diffractives (EODs) composent une partie essentielle dans le succès de microsystèmes optiques. Lithographie à faisceau d'électrons est un élément clé pour la fabrication des structures avec des dimensions critiques submicroniques. Cette thèse présente le travail fait sur le développement d'un processus pour la fabrication des optiques diffractives en utilisant cette méthode. Ce projet étudie des divers défis impliqués dans ce processus, traite des problèmes qui pourrait surgir et propose des solutions pour les résoudre. Les sources d'erreur possible dans la création et le transfert des modèles sont identifiées et des méthodes de les éliminer ou les minimiser sont présentées. Certaines des erreurs sont attribuées à l'accumulation d'électrons et aux problèmes d'alignement lors de la lithographie.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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