Effect of Parameters of Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) for Improving Surface Roughness for Semiconductor Material Kind Silicon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) is the polishing process where the top surface of a wafer is smoothed using a slurry containing abrasive grit as well as reactive chemical agents. The polishing process is partly mechanical and partly chemical. The mechanical element's main advantage is that it is achieved without great effort to manufacture and supplies good-quality general mechanical and electrical properties. In the current study, the invention reckons on the chemical and mechanical properties of the composition particles (abrasive slurry) utilized to polish silicon surfaces traveling through chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP). MINITAB 17 software was used to estimate the influence of the (CMP) input variables on the surface roughness (Ra) of the silicon workpiece. Other process input variables were disk speed (rpm), the dose of abrasive, the grain size of the abrasive, and the type of slurry. In order to get the best response surface roughness, the current findings show that the constant coefficient of determination (R2) is 95.80%. Furthermore, the effects of disk speed (X1), abrasive dose (X2), abrasive grain size (X3), and type of slurry (X4) on achieving a superior surface roughness finish were 21.05%, 4.34%, 50.00%, and 24.59%, respectively.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".