MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034359096 · doi:10.1002/pssc.200777565

One‐dimensional lucky‐drift model with scattering and movement asymmetries for impact ionization in amorphous semiconductors

2008· article· en· W2034359096 on OpenAlexaff
K. Jandieri, Oleg Rubel, S. D. Baranovskiǐ, A. Reznik, J. A. Rowlands, Safa Kasap

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica status solidi. C, Conferences and critical reviews/Physica status solidi. C, Current topics in solid state physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhase-change materials and chalcogenides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScatteringSemiconductorMovement (music)Amorphous semiconductorsImpact ionizationAmorphous solidIonizationMaterials sciencePhysicsComputational physicsCondensed matter physicsAtomic physicsOptoelectronicsOpticsChemistryQuantum mechanicsIonCrystallographyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A lucky‐drift (LD) model for impact ionization has been recently successfully used to account for avalanche phenomenon in amorphous semiconductors. This model however leads to the dependence of the impact ionization coefficient on the sample thickness. However such dependence has not been confirmed experimentally. Recently LD model has been improved taking into account the scattering and movement asymmetry of charge carriers in the applied electric field. As a result, the impact ionization coefficient was obtained independent on the sample thickness. We apply the improved LD model to study the field dependence of the impact ionization coefficient in a‐Se, a‐Si:H and Ge2Sb2Te5. We show that even in one‐dimensional formulation of the improved LD model the agreement between theoretical results and experimental data evidenced in a‐Se is better than that in the formulation with scattering and movement symmetry. (© 2008 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysica status solidi. C, Conferences and critical reviews/Physica status solidi. C, Current topics in solid state physicsSame topicPhase-change materials and chalcogenidesFrench-language works237,207