Thermally activated diffusion of indium into layered materials 2H‐TaSe<sub>2</sub>, and TaS<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have studied the thermal diffusion of indium in single crystals of the layered compounds 2H‐TaSe 2 , and TaS 2 parallel to the layers. Measurements were done in situ in a scanning electron microscope equipped with an X‐ray energy dispersive system. The distance of the diffusing indium front into the crystal was determined as a function of time from secondary electron image as well as from X‐ray line scans for indium taken at different time intervals. The diffusion coefficients D were found by fitting the data to 〈 r 2 〉 = 2 Dt , where 〈 r 2 〉 is the mean square displacement in time t . The diffusion coefficients thus obtained were 1.5 × 10 –12 , 3.8 × 10 –12 , 7.7 × 10 –12 , and 17.5 × 10 –12 m 2 /s with an uncertainty of about 10 percent at 351, 375, 411, and 458 K respectively for TaSe 2 . The values for TaS 2 were 5.3 × 10 –11 , 9.5 × 10 –11 , 1.7 × 10 –10 , and 3.6 × 10 –10 m 2 /s at 345, 369, 388, and 437 K respectively. The activation energy E 0 of indium diffusion, using D = D 0 e , were determined to be (0.32 ± 0.04) eV, and (0.27 + 0.03) eV for TaSe 2 and TaS 2 respectively. The results show that diffusing indium atoms put severe stress on the layers as they intercalate between them. This stress is relieved by buckling of the layers and these buckling features are clearly visible in secondary electron images. (© 2006 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".