Research of wafer Polyimide layer opening size guideline to support WB ball shear test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is to study the guideline of wafer design for Polyimide opening size, with different Passivation layer/ Polyimide layer thickness, to achieve workable and valid wire bonding ball shear test (refer to reference 1), for trustable product Quality and Reliability. Refer to JEDEC (JESD022-B116B) ball shear test operation procedure. This study validates variants of Polyimide layer +Passivation layer thickness versus Wire bond shear test by using existing industry ball shear tooling. Tooling major related design dimensions are shearing arm thickness and width. For wafer design major aspects are Bond pad Opening, polyimide + Passivation opening. Analysis test data to drive the general Polyimide opening design rule as guideline for the wafer design rule with Polyimide layer. Research results show general recommendation for polyimide layer opening size: long side (along the ball shear direction) should be min 2*normal bond pad opening + 110 micrometers, the short size (perpendicular to ball shear direction) should be normal bond pad opening + 60 micrometers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".