The dependence of the Tauc and Cody optical gaps associated with hydrogenated amorphous silicon on the film thickness: αl Experimental limitations and the impact of curvature in the Tauc and Cody plots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a model for the optical spectrum associated with hydrogenated amorphous silicon, explicitly taking into account fundamental experimental limitations encountered, we theoretically determine the dependence of the Tauc and Cody optical gaps associated with hydrogenated amorphous silicon on the thickness of the film. We compare these results with that obtained from experiment. We find that the curvature in the Tauc plot plays a significant role in influencing the determination of the Tauc optical gap associated with hydrogenated amorphous silicon, thus affirming an earlier hypothesis of Cody et al. We also find that the spectral dependence of the refractive index plays an important role in influencing the determination of the Cody optical gap. It is thus clear that care must be exercised when drawing conclusions from the dependence of the Tauc and Cody optical gaps associated with hydrogenated amorphous silicon on the thickness of 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".