<i>In Situ</i> Focused Ion Beam Redeposition Surface Coatings for Site-Specific, Near-Surface Characterization by Atom Probe Tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atom probe tomography (APT) enables three-dimensional chemical mapping with near-atomic scale resolution. However, this method requires precise sample preparation, which is typically achieved using a focused ion beam (FIB) microscope. As the ion beam induces some degree of damage to the sample, it is necessary to apply a protective layer over the region of interest (ROI). Herein, the use of redeposition, a (frequently considered negative) side effect of FIB sputtering, is explored as a technique for targeted surface coatings in site-specific, near-surface APT investigations. In addition, the concept of "self-coating" is presented, which is the application of a capping layer using material from the same, or a similar, sample. It is shown to provide a pathway for high-quality coatings, as well as a method of minimizing the field evaporation threshold difference at the cap-sample interface, thus greatly reducing the likelihood of premature fractures. In situ redeposition surface coatings are shown to be versatile, with four materials used in the coating and analysis of two Si-based semiconductors and a Fe-Mn alloy. Several factors are discussed, such as the specimen yield, the capping layer quality, and the ease of ROI identification, all of which demonstrate its effectiveness in routine sample preparation workflows.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it