Fluorinated Aminoalkoxide and Ketoiminate Indium Complexes as MOCVD Precursors for In<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> Thin Film Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The syntheses of two distinctive types of indium complex derived from trimethylindium (InMe(3)) are reported. The first kind has a generalized structural formula [InMe(2)(amak)](2), where (amak)H is an abbreviation for a series of chelating amino alcohol ligands HOC(CF(3))(2)CH(2)NHR, R = (CH(2))(2)OMe (1), Me (2), and Bu(t) (3), as well as HOC(CF(3))(2)CH(2)NMe(2) (4); while the second type of complex is illustrated by [InMe(2)(keim)] (5), for which (keim)H is a tridentate ketoimine ligand of structural formula O=C(CF(3))CH(2)C(CF(3))=NCH(2)CH(2)NMe(2). The solid-state structures of 2 and 5 were determined using single crystal X-ray diffraction studies. For the aminoalkoxide complexes 2-4, the existence of dimeric In(2)O(2) core structures in the solid state has been established with the amino fragment located trans to the alkoxide ligands, in a molecular arrangement which is in contrast to the distorted, trigonal bipyramidal geometry observed for the ketoiminate complex 5. Moreover, VT NMR studies of 2 revealed a rapid dimer-to-monomer equilibration and simultaneous rupture of the N-->In dative interaction, affording two interconvertible isomers related by having the N-Me substituents in either trans or cis dispositions. For complexes 2 and 5, deposition of In(2)O(3) thin films was successfully conducted at temperatures 400-500 degrees C, using O(2) as the carrier gas to induce indium oxide deposition and to suppress carbon impurity present in the thin film. Scanning electron micrographs (SEMs) revealed the surface morphologies. The atomic composition of these films was examined by both X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and Rutherford backscattering (RBS) methods, while X-ray diffraction studies (XRD) confirmed the formation of a preferred orientation along the (222) planes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".