Charge transfer and re-distribution in the TiO<sub>2</sub>-SrTiO<sub>3</sub>hetero-structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work examined the charge density distribution in the TiO 2 -SrTiO 3 hetero-structure using thermoelectric data reported in the literature. The first part of our work was to identify the equation necessary to extract charge densities. Our findings suggested that the observed thermoelectric power was best described by an equation applicable to a metal. Together with a distributed model that accounted for the layered structure, we computed the charge densities in the different layers. As observed, the charge density in the SrTiO 3 substrate was high (> 10 24 m −3 ) nonetheless in agreement with the value extracted from the depth profile measurement. Proportionally, the interface charge density was also very high (~ 10 28 m −3 ). Using these values, we computed the "effective" charge spread from the sheet conductance data, which was of the order of hundreds of microns. We had found no evidence that such charge spread could have originated from the interface and tended to believe that they were linked to oxygen vacancies embedded in the substrate. This was confirmed by a reduced charge spread when the top TiO 2 layer had been removed. In general, we showed that the thermoelectric power and the power factor were dominated by the properties of the substrate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".