MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969117353 · doi:10.1364/ao.51.006498

Effect of postdeposition annealing on the structure, composition, and the mechanical and optical characteristics of niobium and tantalum oxide films

2012· article· en· W1969117353 on OpenAlexafffund
Eda Goldenberg, J.E. Klemberg-Sapieha, L. Martinů

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Optics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTantalumNiobiumMaterials scienceNiobium oxideAnnealing (glass)OxideOpticsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical, mechanical, and thermal properties of optical thin films are very important for a reliable device performance. In the present work, the effect of annealing on the stability and the characteristics of niobium and tantalum oxide films grown at room temperature (RT) by dual ion beam sputtering were studied. The refractive index (n(λ)), extinction coefficient (k(λ)), hardness (H), reduced Young's modulus (E(r)), and film stress (σ) were investigated as a function of the annealing temperature (T(A)). X-ray diffraction analysis showed that all as-deposited films were amorphous, and crystallization was observed only after annealing at 700°C. Compositional analyses confirmed that the atomic ratio of oxygen to metal in as-deposited and annealed films was close to 2.5, indicating that the films were stoichiometric pentoxides of Nb and Ta. The properties of Nb(2)O(5) and Ta(2)O(5) films were, respectively, affected by postdeposition annealing: n(λ) values (at 550 nm) decreased from 2.30 to 2.20 and from 2.14 to 2.08, the average H and E(r) values increased from 5.6 to 7.4 GPa, and from 121 to 132 GPa for Nb(2)O(5), and from 6.5 to 8.3 GPa, and from 132 to 144 GPa for Ta(2)O(5), and the initial low compressive stress for both materials changed to tensile. We explain the variation of the coating material properties in terms of film stoichiometry, crystallinity, electronic structure, and possible reactions at the film-substrate interface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations49
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied OpticsSame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207