MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246411334 · doi:10.1117/3.322162.ch5

Overlay

2009· book-chapter· en· W4246411334 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPIE eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Surface Polishing Techniques
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverlayComputer scienceStepperSet (abstract data type)HierarchyWaferProcess (computing)Ideal (ethics)EngineeringProgramming languageOpticsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overlay errors can be considered in terms of a hierarchy (Fig. 5.1). Most fundamental are those errors which occur when only a single stepper and ideal substrates are used, and where the latter provide high signal-to-noise alignment signals. This basic set of overlay errors is well described by overlay models, which will be discussed in detail shortly. When more than a single stepper is used, an additional set of overlay errors is introduced, referred to as matching errors. Finally, there are process-specific contributions to overlay that can result in non-ideal alignment targets. A full accounting of overlay errors in terms of a hierarchy is useful for assessing and improving overlay. The control of overlay requires the use of models, because these models are employed directly in the software of wafer steppers when aligning wafers, and the model parameters are changed when adjustments are made to wafer steppers. Overlay models conform to the physics of wafer steppers.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.726
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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