Comparative study of transport properties of compressively strained epitaxial and polycrystalline La<sub>0.88</sub>Sr<sub>0.12</sub>MnO<sub>3</sub> thin films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report a comparative study of the magnetoelectrical properties of epitaxial and polycrystalline thin films of lightly doped manganite La0.88Sr0.12MnO3 (LSMO). The LSMO thin films are deposited on single‐crystal LaAlO3 (LAO/(100)) and yttria‐stabilized ZrO2 (ZO/(100)) substrates by on‐axis DC magnetron sputtering from high‐density targets prepared by a wet chemical route. Films deposited on LAO (6 nm and 35 nm thick) are epitaxial and AFM investigations show clean surface morphology. In contrast, films on ZO (20 nm and 35 nm) are polycrystalline. Small variation in grain size is seen in the surface morphology of films on ZO. Both 6 nm and 35 nm thick films on LAO show sharp I–M transitions around the TC with TIM being 275 K and 285 K, respectively. The TIM of films on ZO is drastically suppressed as compared to the same for films on LAO. The large enhancement in TC and hence TIM of LSMO films on LAO has been explained in terms of the compressive strain arising due to the mismatch between the lattice parameters of LAO and LSMO. The absence of such strain in LSMO films on ZO accounts for the lower TIM values. The LSMO/LAO films also show large magnetoresistance only in the vicinity of the TIM and it decreases strongly on lowering and increasing the temperature. In contrast, the LSMO/ ZO films show relatively lower MR spreading over a wider temperature range. The electrical transport of all the films, both in the PM as well as the FM regions have been analyzed in the framework of several models and the suitability of each model has been discussed. (© 2009 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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".