Structural and elastic characterization of Cu-implanted SiO2 films on Si(100) substrates
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.
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".