Inductively coupled plasma etching of InP using CH4/H2 and CH4/H2/N2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inductively coupled plasma etching of InP in CH4/H2 and CH4/H2/N2 gas mixtures was studied to understand the etching mechanisms and the influence of etching gas composition on etching rate, etching profile, and surface morphology. CH4/H2 plasmas generally had higher etching rates than CH4/H2/N2 plasmas. Deterioration of InP surfaces, following etching, reflected the preferential loss of P over In due to the diffusivity and reactivity of H being higher than CH3 on InP surfaces, and also since PH3 is more volatile than In(CH3)3. In extreme circumstances, this can lead to the formation of In-rich droplets on the surface, with associated surface roughening. This was supported by the opposing trends of surface roughness (measured using atomic force microscopy) and P/In ratio (from x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy) as a function of the CH4 gas concentration for CH4/H2 gas mixtures. The addition of N2 to the CH4/H2 plasmas improved the surface morphology as N radicals reduced the rate of P removal by reacting with H radicals. However, an inevitable increase in the N+ and N2+ concentrations led to erosion of the SiO2 masks and caused sloping sidewalls.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".