MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964115239 · doi:10.1063/1.1501742

Structure and electronic properties of SiO2/Si multilayer superlattices: Si <i>K</i> edge and L3,2 edge x-ray absorption fine structure study

2002· article· en· W1964115239 on OpenAlexaff
Ramaswami Sammynaiken, S. J. Naftel, Tsun‐Kong Sham, Kok‐Wai Cheah, B. Averboukh, R. Huber, Y. R. Shen, G. G. Qin, Z. C., W. H. Zong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperlatticeXANESSiliconPhotoluminescenceMaterials scienceAbsorption edgeElectroluminescenceX-ray absorption fine structureAbsorption (acoustics)Amorphous solidMolecular physicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CrystallographyOptoelectronicsChemistryLayer (electronics)NanotechnologySpectroscopyBand gapPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report an x-ray absorption fine structure study at the Si K and L3,2 edges of a series of Si/SiO2 superlattices (SL). The SL system comprises four periods of elemental silicon with a spacing of 1, 1.4, 2.2, and 2.6 nm sandwiched by a 1.5 nm silicon oxide and capped by a 3 nm silicon oxide layer. These systems exhibit electroluminescence and photoluminescence. X-ray absorption near edge structure (XANES) at both the Si K and L3,2 edge confirms that the Si layers are amorphous. Polarization dependent measurement at the Si K edge reveals that a distinct Si/SiO2 interface exists with strong Si–O bonding oriented preferentially closer to the surface normal. High resolution XANES at the Si L3,2 edge shows a noticeable blueshift of the edge threshold as the lattice spacing decreases, in good accord with quantum confinement. The results and their implications for the origin (quantum confinement and interface/oxide defects) of luminescence in these superlattice systems are discussed.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
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 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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