MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132054260

Electron beam patterning with carboneous contamination rezists below 10 nm linewidth

2002· article· en· W7132054260 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Malac, J. Lau, R. F. Egerton, M. Freeman, Y. C. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaser linewidthAuger electron spectroscopyTransmission electron microscopyCrystallitePermalloyHigh-resolution transmission electron microscopySpectroscopySiliconDiffusion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have studied the processes determining the resolution limits of contamination patterning in a transmission electron microscope (TEM) as a means to produce magnetic nanostructures. By optimizing the exposure parameters we achieved linewidth of 7 nm. Sputter etch was used to transfer the pattern to cobalt, permalloy and bismuth films on silicon nitride membranes. Previously the resolution of the technique was determined by the crystallite size of the patterned film. We have investigated patterning of our structures within one large crystallite and we have studied the limitations dictated by the kinetics of the surface diffusion processes. A comparison of pattern writing at conditions when importance of surface diffusion is suppressed (high dose rate and high writing speed) with diffusion controlled writing (slow writing at low dose rate) was made. We have explored the reproducibility and suitability of different types of materials for precontaminating the samples. Transmission electron microscopy, electron holography, electron energy loss spectroscopy and high resolution TEM was used to characterize structure and to study properties of such structures.

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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207