Effects of strain on the band alignment and the optical gain of a CdTe/ZnTe quantum dot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The band lineups at the strained layer interfaces, in ZnxCd1–xTe/ZnTe quantum dot nanostructure for various Zn alloy content, are computed using model solid theory with an example of CdTe/ZnTe interface. The effects of strain, due to hydrostatic and biaxial strain, and the internal electric fields, due to the spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization, are taken into consideration. The dielectric mismatch, through the effective potential, is introduced between the dielectric constants of the dot and the barrier materials. The interband emission energy as a function of dot radius is computed for various Zn alloy content. The optical gain spectra of heavy hole exciton for various Zn concentration are studied. Calculations are obtained for different confinement potentials with the inclusion strain effect. Our results show that (i) the potential taking into account the effects of PB potential due to the dielectric mismatch enhances the exciton binding energy and (ii) the geometry of quantum dot, the strain effects and the Zinc alloy content have great influences on the electrical and optical properties of the dot. Our results are in good agreement with the previous investigators.
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".