Facet type determination based on combined atomic force microscopy and electron backscatter diffraction
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of facet types affects the functionality of the surfaces of polycrystalline films. However, we are not aware of a previously published convenient method to determine their distribution. This work describes and demonstrates a process to determine and map the Miller indexes (hkl) of crystal facets exposed at the surfaces of polycrystalline films. To find facet types in non-trivial cases, one must know the orientation of the crystal and the direction in which the facet is facing. The method presented here combines the crystal orientations obtained with electron backscatter diffraction with the topography of the same sample area measured with atomic force microscopy. A challenging step is to transfer the data from the two instruments into a common coordinate system. The sequence of steps in the data processing is presented, with methods to verify the results. The process is illustrated with the analysis of an etched copper clad laminate (CCL) and an electroless Cu film deposited on the CCL. This example relates to facet selection in electroless and galvanic plating processes in printed circuit board production, where an uncontrolled transition from epitaxial to non-epitaxial growth can lead to surfaces with unacceptable roughness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it