MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032789166 · doi:10.1116/1.1764814

Electronic and optical properties of GaAsN/GaAs quantum wells: A tight-binding study

2004· article· en· W2032789166 on OpenAlexaff
N. Shtinkov, Simon Turcotte, J.-N. Beaudry, P. Desjardins, R. A. Masut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology A Vacuum Surfaces and Films · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum wellValence bandTight bindingValence (chemistry)Electronic structureDiffractionCondensed matter physicsBinding energyOffset (computer science)ChemistryMaterials scienceElectronic band structureQuantum chemicalAtomic physicsMolecular physicsPhysicsMoleculeBand gapOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present empirical tight-binding (TB) calculations of the electronic structure of GaAs1−xNx/GaAs (001) quantum wells (QWs) with small N concentrations (0<x<0.045). We use a recently developed TB model for the electronic structure of dilute GaAs1−xNx [Shtinkov et al., Phys. Rev. B 67, 081202R (2003)] without introducing any additional parameters apart from the valence band offset (VBO) between GaAs and GaAs1−xNx. The dependences of the bound states energies on the QW width and on the N concentration x are investigated and the nature of the lowest-energy optical transitions is analyzed, showing that the knowledge of the first two optical transitions is sufficient to determine the value of the VBO. Our results are compared with experimental data from the literature, revealing good agreement for x⩽0.02. For larger concentrations, we find that the agreement is greatly improved if the concentrations determined from x-ray diffraction data are corrected for deviations from Vegard’s rule. The comparison with experimental results suggests that the unstrained GaAs/GaAs1−xNx VBO is close to zero, in agreement with other studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vacuum Science & Technology A Vacuum Surfaces and FilmsSame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207