Structural and elastic characterization of Cu-implanted SiO2 films on Si(100) substrates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cu-implanted SiO2 films on Si(100) have been studied and compared to unimplanted SiO2 on Si(100) using x-ray methods, transmission electron microscopy, Rutherford backscattering, and Brillouin spectroscopy. The x-ray results indicate the preferred orientation of Cu {111} planes parallel to the Si substrate surface without any directional orientation for Cu-implanted SiO2∕Si(100) and for Cu-implanted and annealed SiO2∕Si(100). In the latter case, transmission electron microscopy reveals the presence of spherical nanocrystallites with an average size of ∼2.5 nm. Rutherford backscattering shows that these crystallites (and the Cu in the as-implanted film) are largely confined to depths of 0.4−1.2 μm below the film surface. Brillouin spectra contain peaks due to surface, film-guided and bulk acoustic modes. Surface (longitudinal) acoustic wave velocities for the implanted films were ∼7% lower (∼2% higher) than for unimplanted SiO2∕Si(100). Elastic constants were estimated from the acoustic wave velocities and film densities. C11 (C44) for the implanted films was ∼10% higher (lower) than that for the unimplanted film. The differences in acoustic velocities and elastic moduli are ascribed to implantation-induced compaction and/or the presence of Cu in the SiO2 film.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it