Insights into the Formation Mechanisms of Si−OR Monolayers from the Thermal Reactions of Alcohols and Aldehydes with Si(111)−H<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen-terminated Si(111) reacts thermally at moderate temperatures with alcohols (RCH 2 OH) and aldehydes (RCHO) to form the corresponding Si−OCH 2 R films. The films are characterized by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). While FTIR and XP spectroscopies suggest that films of similar composition are formed, AFM and the relative chemical stabilities of the organic films show that the two reactions do not result in structurally identical films. A mechanism for the reaction of the aldehyde with Si(111)−H is proposed which is analogous to the well-known hydrosilylation of aldehydes. The reaction proceeds either by nucleophilic addition/hydride transfer or by a radical chain mechanism via adventitious radical initiation. The alcohol reaction is similar to the chemical etching of Si(111)−H by water and short-chain alcohols. This reaction proceeds by nucleophilic attack followed by loss of dihydrogen. Traces of ammonium fluoride or water on the surface result in etching of the terraces on a time scale which is much faster than the reaction of the alcohol but not of the aldehyde. This etching can be completely suppressed by the addition of chlorotrimethylsilane to the reaction mixture. This reagent quickly scavenges both water and fluoride from the surface and reaction mixture. It is suggested that this may be a useful reagent to scavenge undesirable nucleophiles during wet chemical modification of Si(111)−H.
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) | 0.002 | 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".