Mitigation of accumulated electric charge by deposited fluorocarbon film during SiO2 etching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SiO 2 contact-hole etching with a high-aspect ratio is a key process in fabricating ultra-large scale integrated devices. However, charge accumulation in contact holes during plasma etching causes serious problems, such as charge-build-up damage, etching-stop, and microloading effects. Therefore, understanding the mechanism behind this electric charge accumulation and controlling the plasma etching processes would be very important to achieve the next-generation semiconductor devices. We found, through our previous research, that deposited fluorocarbon film in contact holes had high electric conductivity because of ion bombardment. In this experiment, we investigated the build up of charging potential during plasma processes by in situ on-wafer monitoring to control charge accumulation in the contact holes. We developed an on-wafer monitoring device to measure the charging potential in SiO2 contact holes (aspect ratio=5.7). The dc potential of the SiO2 contact hole top and bottom surfaces were measured during plasma exposure with/without deposited fluorocarbon film in the holes. The results revealed that the sidewall deposited fluorocarbon film has high electric conductivity that may mitigate electric charge accumulation at the bottom of contact holes during SiO2 etching processes.
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".