Fabrication of slanted gratings by using glancing angle deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slanted gratings, commonly used for manipulating light in various applications, are typically fabricated using conventional top-down methods. However, these methods have limitations on material choice. This paper explores the use of glancing angle deposition (GLAD) to fabricate slanted gratings with various materials and slant angles on silicon (Si) and quartz (SiO2) substrates. The process involves the first step of creating a template using electron beam lithography, lift-off, and dry etching, and the second step of electron beam evaporation at a glancing angle on the prefabricated template. The template consists of grating structures with very shallow trenches. Different materials, such as chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and titanium oxide (TiO2), were used in the GLAD process to create slanted grating structures on Si or SiO2 substrates, showcasing their versatility. Here, the formation of the slanted grating is due to the shadowing effect that leads to deposition onto the protruded grating lines but not into the trench. Using TiO2 as the source material, the GLAD technique can produce slanted gratings with various angles by adjusting the deposition angle. The optical characteristics of the slanted grating prepared using GLAD were verified through simulations with COMSOL software, confirming its excellent light guide performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".