Analysis of step-based silicon surfaces at facet boundaries during wet anisotropic etching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A step-based model describing the anisotropic etching of silicon by the advancement of steps on flat {111} planes is supported by under-etch experiments on {100} and {110} silicon wafers. However, such a model does not explain etch rate variations of surfaces having the same families of Miller Indices exposed to the same etchant. This work analyzes crystal features at intersections between facets composed of two different types of steps, one called “rows of kinks,” and the other called “periodic bond chains,” intersecting at an angle of 120°. This important configuration, called K-P-120°, is analyzed with a view to whether step movement would propagate across a boundary between facets. An under-etched surface, composed of three facets and a cavity bottom, having alternating K-P-K-P combinations, (where all of the facet boundary step interactions are K-P-120°), is analyzed. Facet roughness patterns, comparative etch rates, and analysis of boundary atom positions support the conclusion that that across-facet-boundary zipping of steps is favored from P steps to K steps, more than from K steps to P steps.
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".