MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974272663 · doi:10.1063/1.2405741

Effect of Al addition on the microstructure and electronic structure of HfO2 film

2007· article· en· W1974272663 on OpenAlexaff
X. F. Wang, Quan Li, R.F. Egerton, P. F. Lee, Jiyan Dai, Zhufeng Hou, Xin Gong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmorphous solidMaterials scienceHafniumMicrostructureThin filmElectronic structureValence (chemistry)Electron energy loss spectroscopyValence electronAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectronCrystallographyZirconiumNanotechnologyMetallurgyComputational chemistryChemistryTransmission electron microscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have investigated the microstructures and electronic structures of a series of hafnium aluminate (HfAlO) films with Al concentration ranging from 0% to 100%. When the films evolve from pure HfO2 to pure Al2O3 by increasing the aluminum content, we find changes in their radial distribution functions, which disclose the short-range order of the materials, despite the amorphous nature of all films. The HfAlO films (with Al∕Hf ratio ranging from 0.25 to 5.8) appear to be a single glassy phase of Hf, Al, and O, instead of simple mixtures of HfO2 and Al2O3. The Hf (Al)–O, Hf (Al)–Al, and Hf–Hf bonds are observed to be insensitive to the amount of Al in the film, except when the Al concentration is large (Al∕Hf∼5.8), in which case the bonding is similar to that in pure Al2O3. Although the local symmetry of Hf in amorphous HfO2 is suggested by the electron energy-loss spectrum taken at an oxygen K edge, it is largely disrupted when Al is introduced. The valence electron energy-loss spectroscopy reveals three distinct evolving features as the Al content increases, which we discuss in terms of the electronic structure of HfO2.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207