MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laser Direct Imaging – Towards a Universal Tool for Display Manufacturing

2005· article· en· W4378378224 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

VenueTechnical programs and proceedings/Technical program and proceedings · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsBurnaby Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotolithographyLiquid-crystal displayComputer scienceProcess (computing)Engineering drawingMaterials scienceNanotechnologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constant push to reduce prices is forcing display manufacturers to continuously look for cheaper manufacturing methods. One of the main cost drivers in display manufacturing is patterning. The process of manufacturing a modern display includes several steps of patterning which are conventionally done by photolithography. Photolithography certainly delivers the level of quality that is required in modern displays but it requires costly equipment and, being a subtractive process, also considerable chemical infrastructure for handling the developing, stripping and etching steps which follow the patterning. Laser direct imaging, now the predominant patterning method in computer-to-plate (CTP) applications in graphic arts, has already been proposed as a replacement for photolithography in manufacturing LCD color filters and inkjet barrier ribs.The purpose of this paper is to present recent work done by Creo Inc. and our partners that demonstrates additional applications where laser direct imaging could replace photolithography in display manufacturing. Such applications include surface energy patterning, conductor sintering and process-less masks.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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