Composition and growth of anodic and thermal oxides on InP and GaAs
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
Abstract Research using surface analytical techniques (Auger, XPS and 16 O/ 18 O SIMS) to characterize anodic films (formed in aqueous electrolytes at ambient temperature) and thermal oxides (formed at ∼500°C) on both InP and GaAs is summarized. Anodic and thermal oxides on InP comprise an outer indium‐rich layer and an inner layer containing In 2 O 3 , phosphorus oxide and P–O compounds with indium. For anodic films, sequential 16 O/ 18 O SIMS experiments indicate oxygen ion ingress with inner layer growth at the film/substrate interface and outer layer growth of In 2 O 3 at the film/electrolyte interface. Electrical measurements performed on metal–insulator–semiconductor (MIS) structures indicate the oxides on InP to be ‘leaky’. Thermal oxides formed on GaAs in oxygen consist primarily of Ga 2 O 3 with a small amount of arsenic (a few per cent) at the outer oxide surface as both As 2 O 3 and As 2 O 5 and a significant accumulation of elemental arsenic at the oxide/substrate interface. This probably leads to a high density of electronic traps and poor electrical properties. Anodic oxides (∼40 nm thick) formed in phosphate solution, however, have better electrical properties exhibiting low current densities (up to 6 V), making these films potentially useful for device applications. Copyright © 2002 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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