MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391690328 · doi:10.1002/smll.202309877

20 µm Micro‐LEDs Mass Transfer via Laser‐Induced In Situ Nanoparticles Resonance Enhancement

2024· article· en· W4391690328 on OpenAlexaff
Weigao Sun, Lingfei Ji, Zhenyuan Lin, Litian Zhang, Zhiyong Wang, Wenbin Qin, Tianyang Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThin-Film Transistor Technologies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLight-emitting diodeMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsLaserPicosecondNanoparticlePhotonicsResonance (particle physics)Ultrashort pulseThermalNanotechnologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ultrafast laser is expected as a promising strategy for micro‐LEDs (µ‐LEDs) transfer due to its inherent property of suppressing thermal effects. However, its ultrahigh peak power and the unclear transfer mechanism make its transfer quality and efficiency unsatisfactory. Here, the study reports the high‐precision mass transfer of 20 µm fine‐pitch µ‐LEDs via in situ nanoparticles (NPs) resonance enhancement in burst mode ultraviolet picosecond laser irradiation. This technique suppresses the thermal melting effect and rapid cooling behavior of plasma by temporal modulation of the burst mode, generating NPs‐induced resonance enhancement that accurately and controllable drives a single unit up to tens of thousands of µ‐LEDs. The transfer of large µ‐LED arrays with more than 180 000 chips is also demonstrated, showing a transfer yield close to 99.9%, a transfer speed of 700 pcs s −1 , and a transfer error of <±1.2 µm. The transferred µ‐LEDs perform excellent optoelectronic properties and enable reliable device operation regardless of complex strain environments, providing a reliable strategy for preparing broader classes of 3D integrated photonics devices.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicThin-Film Transistor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207