MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362691388

Characterization of Interconnects

2023· paratext· en· W4362691388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Hacke

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2023
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D IC and TSV technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacterization (materials science)Computer scienceMaterials scienceNanotechnology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combined-accelerated stress testing (C-AST) simultaneously combines stress factors of the natural environment (including UV radiation, temperature, humidity, electrical current, and external mechanical force) into a single test that requires fewer modules, fewer chambers, and makes it possible to discover weaknesses in new designs that are not known a-priori. C-AST reduces risk, accelerates time to market, and improves bankability by reducing costly overdesign using test levels not exceeding those seen in the natural environment. This project seeks to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of modern cell interconnect designs with combined-accelerated stress testing (C-AST) to screen multiple climates along with finite element and failure analysis to determine the potential for a 50-year life. Supporting this, we seek to develop methods of characterization to assess the degradation of interconnects, enable predictive rate models with material forensics and FEA and show C-AST's ability to find interconnect failures and benchmark it relative to other accelerated stress test methods like temperature cycling and cyclic dynamic mechanical loading. Examples of modern interconnect designs covered are Canadian Solar Hetero Technology ribbon enabling closer cell interconnections, SmartWire (eg. Meyer-Berger technology), and shingled cells with new interconnect materials.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topic3D IC and TSV technologiesFrench-language works237,207