MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of secondary electrons on radiolysis as observed by in liquid TEM: The role of window material and electrical bias

2022· article· en· W4283385962 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey A. Bultema, Robert Bücker, Eike C. Schulz, Friedjof Tellkamp, Josef Gonschior, R. J. Dwayne Miller, Günther Kassier

Bibliographic record

VenueUltramicroscopy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMax-Planck-GesellschaftJoachim Herz Stiftung
KeywordsElectronMaterials scienceSecondary electronsCathode rayChemical physicsMolecular physicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of window material on electron beam induced phenomena in liquid phase electron microscopy (LPEM) is an interesting yet under-explored subject. We have studied the differences of electron beam induced gold nanoparticle (AuNP) growth subject to three encapsulation materials: Silicon Nitride (Si3N4), carbon and formvar. We find Si3N4 liquid cells (LCs) to result in significantly higher AuNP growth yield as compared to LCs employing the other two materials. In all cases, an electrical bias of the entire LC structures significantly affected particle growth. We demonstrate an inverse correlation of the AuNP growth rate with secondary electron (SE) emission from the windows. We attribute these differences at least in part to variations in SE emission dynamics, which is seen as a combination of material and bias dependent SE escape flux (SEEF) and SE return flux (SERF). Furthermore, our model predictions qualitatively match electrochemistry expectations.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltramicroscopySame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207