Effect of ac Electrodeposition Conditions on the Growth of High Aspect Ratio Copper Nanowires in Porous Aluminum Oxide Templates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of several deposition parameters on the uniformity of copper electrodeposition through the alumina barrier layer into porous aluminum oxide templates grown in sulfuric or oxalic acid was systematically investigated. A fractional factorial design of experiment was conducted to find suitable deposition conditions among the variables: frequency, voltage, pulsed or continuous deposition, electrolyte concentration, and barrier layer thinning voltage. Continuous ac sine wave deposition conditions yielded excellent uniformity of pore-filling but damaged the porous aluminum oxide templates when deposition was continued to grow bulk copper on the surface. Pulsed electrodeposition yielded comparable uniformity of pore-filling and no damage to the porous aluminum oxide templates, even when bulk copper was deposited on them. Further optimization of pulsed deposition conditions was accomplished by comparing square and sine waveforms and pulse polarity. Pulsed square waveforms produced better pore-filling than pulsed sine waveforms. For sine wave depositions, the oxidative/reductive pulse polarity was more efficient than the commonly used reductive/oxidative pulse polarity. For square wave depositions into sulfuric acid grown pores, the reductive/oxidative pulse polarity produces more uniform pore-filling, likely as a result of enhanced resonant tunneling through the barrier layer and reoxidation of copper in faster filling pores.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it