Structure and mechanical properties of Ti–Si–N films deposited by combined DC/RF reactive unbalanced magnetron sputtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ti–Si–N nanocomposite films with Si content between 0 and 13.5at.% were deposited by combined DC/RF reactive unbalanced magnetron sputtering. The composition, structure, and mechanical properties of the as-deposited Ti–Si–N films were measured by energy dispersive analysis of x rays, x-ray diffraction (XRD), and nanoindentation experiments, respectively. All of the Ti–Si–N films exhibited a higher hardness than pure TiN films deposited under similar conditions. The highest hardness (∼41GPa) was obtained in the film with Si content of about 8at.%. Ti–Si–N films also exhibited a higher resistance to plastic deformation (i.e., higher ratio H3∕E*2) than pure TiN. XRD patterns revealed that the as-deposited films were composed of cubic TiN crystallites with a preferential orientation of (111). With increase of RF power applied to the Si targets, the TiN (111) peak intensity or TiN crystallite size increased in the lower RF power range but decreased in the higher RF power range, showing a maximum at an RF power of 500W (power density ∼1.14W∕cm2), corresponding to a Si content of about 5at.% in the film.
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".