MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1540394020 · doi:10.1109/nlo.1998.710348

Surface Second Harmonic Generation as a Probe of Anodic Oxidation of Si[001]

2002· article· en· W1540394020 on OpenAlexaff
S. A. Mitchell, Siegfried Janz, J. A. Bardwell

Bibliographic record

VenueNonlinear Optics '98. Materials, Fundamentals and Applications Topical Meeting (Cat. No.98CH36244) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaInstitute for Microstructural SciencesSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotentiostatWaferMaterials scienceSecond-harmonic generationOxideSiliconElectrochemistryAnodeElectrodeSurface chargeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OptoelectronicsNanotechnologyChemistryOpticsMetallurgyPhysical chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Anodic oxidation of Si(OO1) has been well studied by traditional electrochemical techniques.' A detailed description of the process is however lacking due to insufficient knowledge of tlhe state of the silicon surface during the course of the reaction. In the present work, we emploly surface second harmonic generation (SHG) to monitor the oxidation process in situ. Our recent work has clearly shown that the variation of the SHG signal during oxidation is largely determined by the evolution of the space charge field in the silicon. This result is consistent with the experiments of previous workers that demonstrate that thie nonlinear optical response of SUSi02 interfaces is sensitive to the presence of electric fields in the space charge region (SCR) of' By enabling us to monitor the surface potential in the Si during oxide growth, these in situ optical experiments reveal details of the oxidation mechanism that are difficult or impossible to study by using purely electrochemical methods. The experimental arrangement for in situ monitoring of anodic oxidation by surface SHG is shown in Figure 1. Anodic oxide growths were carried out in a three electrode electrochemical cell containing 0.1 M HCI electrolyte. The potential between the p-doped (7 x: 1014 ~m-~) Si(OO1) wafer and a saturated calomel electrode (SCE) was varied by using a computer controlled potentiostat. Prior to each experiment, the Si wafer was etched in 1% HF to remove the existing oxide and leave a H-terminated surface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueNonlinear Optics '98. Materials, Fundamentals and Applications Topical Meeting (Cat. No.98CH36244)Same topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207