Electron beam patterning with carboneous contamination rezists below 10 nm linewidth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".