MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402154097 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2024p0257

Influence of Substrate Patterns on the Coating Microstructure in Aerosol-Deposited Alumina Coatings

2024· article· en· W4402154097 on OpenAlexaff
Zhenying Yang, Ali Dolatabadi, Thomas W. Coyle

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceMicrostructureScanning electron microscopeCoatingSubstrate (aquarium)Composite materialWaferNanocrystalline materialDeposition (geology)CeramicNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aerosol deposition (AD) is a novel method for producing dense nanocrystalline ceramic films at room temperature. Previous studies primarily used flat substrates with varying hardness and roughness. However, the development of micro-device applications is increasing the demand for deposition on structured/patterned surfaces. To investigate the impact of substrate patterns on coating microstructure and growth mechanisms in AD, alumina coatings were deposited on patterned Si substrates. Si wafers with patterns of micropillars were employed. The coatings were characterized using laser scanning microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and x-ray diffraction. The microstructure and density of coatings in the valleys were influenced by the size of and the spacing between the patterns. The results revealed that coatings initially formed in the valleys before covering the entire pattern. Fragments of the initial powder particles became trapped between the patterns, adhering to the groove bottoms and pillar sides. Subsequent particle impacts and densification processes transformed these fragments, ultimately filling the gaps between the walls. With further deposition, a uniform coating surface was achieved.

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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207