Blazed Silicon Gratings for Soft X-Ray and Extreme Ultraviolet Radiation: the Effect of Groove Profile Shape and Random Roughness on the Diffraction Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of the groove profile shape and random roughness of the reflecting facet of five silicon diffraction gratings (1°–4° blaze angle, period 0.4, 1.4, 2, and 4 μm, various coatings) operating in the soft X-ray and extreme ultraviolet radiation ranges on the outflow of the diffraction efficiency from working orders is studied. Diffraction gratings were fabricated by wet etching of Si(111) vicinal wafers and characterized by atomic force microscopy to determine the shape of the groove profile and roughness. The diffraction efficiency of gratings operating in classical and conical diffraction mounts was calculated based on realistic groove profiles by computer simulation using the PCGrateTM code and taking into account the scattering intensity using Nevot–Croce or Debye–Waller corrections or using the Monte Carlo method (rigorously). The effect ofthe groove profile shape and roughness on the diffraction efficiency of the fabricated Si gratings is shown.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".