MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416885094 · doi:10.37665/srqxgvf57000

Fine Feature Stencil Printing 0.3mm Pitch Components

2009· article· W4416885094 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoldering and Reliability Conferences · 2009
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStencilMiniaturizationSolder pasteFeature (linguistics)Electronic componentProcess (computing)Component (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The explosive growth of personal electronic devices such as mobile phones and personal music devices has driven the need for smaller and smaller passive and active electrical components. Not too long ago, 0401 (40 x 10 mils) passives were seen as the ultimate in miniaturization, but recently 0201 and now 01005 passives have arrived, with rumors of even smaller sizes to come. For active electrical components, the 0.4mm pitch component has become commonplace with 0.3mm already in the works. What effect does this miniaturization have on the stencil printing process? Can it meet the challenge? This paper takes a preliminary look at some of the work that has been performed to evaluate the capability of the stencil printing process to print these fine feature components. Discussed is the stencil printing of the small features and efforts to obtain consistent volume in the printed solder paste deposit.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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