MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1620087980 · doi:10.1063/1.2711774

Microstructural and optical properties of Ba0.5Sr0.5TiO3 thin film deposited by pulsed laser deposition for low loss waveguide applications

2007· article· en· W1620087980 on OpenAlexaff
Mounir Gaidi, Mohamed Chaker, Paul F. Ndione, Roberto Morandotti, B. Bessaı̈s

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric Materials
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceThin filmAmorphous solidPulsed laser depositionAnnealing (glass)Scanning electron microscopeEllipsometryOptoelectronicsPhotolithographyOpticsWaveguideNanotechnologyComposite materialCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Barium strontium titanate (Ba0.5Sr0.5TiO3 or BST) films were grown on SiO2∕Si substrate by means of a reactive pulsed laser deposition technique. The microstructural and surface morphology of BST films were characterized by x-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and atomic force microscopy. Films deposited at 400°C were found to be amorphous and present wide cracks. The crystallization of the films was induced by annealing at 600°C. The BST films deposited at 550°C present a cubic perovskite structure with a dense and smooth surface. The optical constants (n and k as a function of wavelength) of the films were obtained using variable angle spectroscopic ellipsometry in the UV-vis-NIR regions. Microfabricated BST∕SiO2∕Si ridged waveguides were patterned using UV photolithography and high-density plasma etching. The propagation and loss characteristics at the telecommunication wavelength of 1.55μm were investigated using top-view scattering and Fabry-Pérot resonance methods. For specific ridge widths, we obtained single-mode propagation with relatively low losses (∼1dB∕cm), thereby demonstrating the strong potential of BST films for guided-wave components for advanced optical integrated systems.

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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicFerroelectric and Piezoelectric MaterialsFrench-language works237,207