MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300859152 · doi:10.31399/asm.edfa.2001-1.p020

Emission Microscopy: A Historical Review

2001· review· en· W4300859152 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 · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Circuits and Semiconductor Failure Analysis
Canadian institutionsHyperion Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptoelectronicsLuminescenceMaterials scienceMicroscopyLight emissionOxideAvalanche diodeNanotechnologyAvalanche breakdownBreakdown voltageTransistorEngineering physicsVoltageElectrical engineeringOpticsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article discusses some of the early uses of emission microscopy in semiconductor device failure analysis and the challenges that were overcome to make it the invaluable tool it is today. One of the impediments early on was a misconception that silicon cannot emit light when, in fact, it has several light emission mechanisms that have proven useful in electron microscopy. One such mechanism, avalanche luminescence, occurs in junctions during reverse breakdown and is useful for resolving low breakdown voltage and problems with ESD protection circuits. Other light emission mechanisms discussed in the article include forward bias emission, MOS transistor saturation, and dielectric luminescence, which is used to examine oxide test structures and detect oxide defects.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.258 · 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