MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1627291361 · doi:10.1063/1.3086644

Photoluminescence and positron annihilation spectroscopy of MeV Si+ ion-irradiated SiyO1−y:Er (y≈1/3) thin films

2009· article· en· W1627291361 on OpenAlexaff
Darren Blakie, O. H. Y. Zalloum, J. Wójcik, E. Irving, Andrew P. Knights, Peter Mascher, P. J. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoluminescenceMaterials scienceAnnealing (glass)Positron annihilation spectroscopyAmorphous solidIrradiationThin filmFluenceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonSpectroscopySiliconIon implantationOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyCrystallographyPositronChemistryPositron annihilationMetallurgyElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amorphous erbium-doped silicon oxide (SiyO1−y:Er, y≥1/3) thin films are currently under investigation as a luminescent material system for complementary metal-oxide semiconductor compatible light emitters. We have grown films with y≈1/3 and investigated their properties using both positron annihilation and photoluminescence (PL) spectroscopies. Films were characterized “as deposited,” following irradiation with 1 MeV Si+ ions and after isochronal annealing. The PL yield from both Er3+ ions and sensitizing defects is reduced by irradiation, depending strongly on the irradiation fluence and reaching saturation at ∼4×1013 Si+/cm2. Higher implantation fluences result in an open-volume defect structure in the film that persists after annealing. This annealing behavior is similar to that of an unrecoverable quenching effect on Er3+-related PL near 1540 nm, and we suggest that these open-volume defects may cause a decoupling of the Er3+ ions from sensitizing oxide point defects that form as a result of the film deposition process.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207