MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300823242 · doi:10.31399/asm.edfa.2003-1.p011

Chip-Scale Packages and Their Failure Analysis Challenges

2003· article· en· W4300823242 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

VenueEDFA Technical Articles · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChip-scale packageComputer scienceChipScale (ratio)Ball grid arrayReliability engineeringEmbedded systemEngineeringMaterials scienceSolderingTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chip-scale packages (CSPs) make efficient use of space on PCBs, but their small size, multilevel stacking arrangements, and complex interconnects present serious challenges when it comes to testing and failure analysis. This article describes some of the problems encountered when dealing with various types of CSPs and provides practical solutions based on the tools and techniques available in most FA labs. It discusses the causes and effects of package and die related failures and walks readers through the steps involved in decapsulating plastic FBGA packages using conventional etching, polishing, and milling techniques.

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 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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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