Remote hydrogen plasma chemical vapor deposition of silicon–carbon thin‐film materials from a hexamethyldisilane source: Characterization of the process and the deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amorphous, hydrogenated silicon–carbon (a‐Si:C:H) films were produced by remote hydrogen plasma chemical vapor deposition (RHP‐CVD) with hexamethyldisilane (HMDS) as the starting compound. Microwave hydrogen plasma was the source of the atomic hydrogen active species. The susceptibility of particular bonds in the HMDS molecule toward the initiation step was established with tetramethylsilane as a model compound. The reaction mechanisms proposed for the RHP‐CVD process revealed the important role of polymerization in film growth. The temperature dependence of the film growth rate implied that the investigated RHP‐CVD was a nonthermally activated process. The a‐Si:C:H films produced at different deposition temperatures were characterized in terms of their chemical structure, surface and bulk composition, surface morphology, surface free energy, density, corrosion resistance, mechanical properties (adhesion and hardness), and optical properties (refractive index and optical band gap). The deposition temperature appeared to be a key parameter, precisely controlling the structure and properties of the resulting films. Based on the results of these studies, reasonable structure–property relationships were found. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 86: 1445–1458, 2002
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".