MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963602839 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.79.125405

X-ray reflectometry characterization of porous silicon films prepared by a glancing-angle deposition method

2009· article· en· W1963602839 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid Asgharizadeh, Mark Sutton, Kevin Robbie, Tim Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThin-Film Transistor Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceReflectometryDeposition (geology)PorosityThin filmChemical vapor depositionSubstrate (aquarium)Refractive indexSiliconOpticsPorous siliconAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Composite materialNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The competitive growth process of ballistic deposition is studied experimentally using x-ray reflectivity characterization of silicon thin films deposited with various vapor incidence angles. Linear profiles of film density with thickness are shown to reproduce the observed reflectivity spectra. A porosity of about 10% was observed in the first few atomic layers atop the substrate, with porosity decreasing with film thickness to near zero for vapor incidence between normal and $60\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}$, and porosity increasing to 50% and above for vapor incidence angles above $70\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}$---the regime of glancing-angle deposition. Our results support the model of glancing deposition as sequential atomic ballistic deposition, where the observed sign change in the slope of the density profile is understood to correspond to the geometric condition where the roughening caused by self-shadowing overtakes the smoothing effects of atomic surface diffusion. From the electron-density profiles derived from x-ray reflectivity measurements, we calculate the average porosity and using data on optical indices of refraction we estimate the amount of silicon oxide.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicThin-Film Transistor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207