MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959626072 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2013-0123

Effects of strain on the band alignment and the optical gain of a CdTe/ZnTe quantum dot

2013· article· en· W1959626072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Sangeetha, A. John Peter, ChangKyoo Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotDielectricExcitonPhysicsPiezoelectricityCondensed matter physicsCadmium telluride photovoltaicsBiexcitonHydrostatic pressureAlloyOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The band lineups at the strained layer interfaces, in Zn x Cd 1– x Te/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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207