MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996173836 · doi:10.1063/1.4880661

Inhibitive formation of nanocavities by introduction of Si atoms in Ge nanocrystals produced by ion implantation

2014· article· en· W1996173836 on OpenAlexaff
Rongsheng Cai, Y. Q. Wang, Lei Shang, X. H. Liu, Y. J. Zhang, J.R.H. Ross, David Barba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermaniumAnnealing (glass)Materials scienceNanocrystalTransmission electron microscopyIon implantationIonSiliconCrystallographySubstrate (aquarium)Chemical bondAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyOptoelectronicsChemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Germanium nanocrystals (Ge-nc) were successfully synthesized by co-implantation of Si and Ge ions into a SiO2 film thermally grown on (100) Si substrate and fused silica (pure SiO2), respectively, followed by subsequent annealing at 1150 °C for 1 h. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) examinations show that nanocavities only exist in the fused silica sample but not in the SiO2 film on a Si substrate. From the analysis of the high-resolution TEM images and electron energy-loss spectroscopy spectra, it is revealed that the absence of nanocavities in the SiO2 film/Si substrate is attributed to the presence of Si atoms inside the formed Ge-nc. Because the energy of Si-Ge bonds (301 kJ·mol−1) are greater than that of Ge-Ge bonds (264 kJ·mol−1), the introduction of the Si-Ge bonds inside the Ge-nc can inhibit the diffusion of Ge from the Ge-nc during the annealing process. However, for the fused silica sample, no crystalline Si-Ge bonds are detected within the Ge-nc, where strong Ge outdiffusion effects produce a great number of nanocavities. Our results can shed light on the formation mechanism of nanocavities and provide a good way to avoid nanocavities during the process of ion implantation.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207