MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038886138 · doi:10.1063/1.1417997

X-ray absorption fine structure and electron energy loss spectroscopy study of silicon nanowires at the Si L3,2 edge

2001· article· en· W2038886138 on OpenAlexaff
Xuhui Sun, Yongliang Tang, Peng Zhang, S. J. Naftel, Ramaswami Sammynaiken, T. K. Sham, Hongying Peng, Y.-F. Zhang, N. B. Wong, S. T. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueshiftX-ray absorption fine structureNanowireMaterials scienceSiliconAbsorption edgeAbsorption (acoustics)SpectroscopyElectronMolecular physicsExcited stateQuantum dotOptoelectronicsBand gapPhotoluminescenceAtomic physicsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

X-ray absorption fine structures (XAFS) and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) at the Si L3,2 edge have been used to investigate a series of Si nanowires (as-prepared and HF refreshed). X-ray excited optical luminescence (XEOL) was also used to study the optical properties of these Si nanowires. Although no noticeable edge-jump blueshift (widened band gap) is observed in XAFS, a noticeable change in the edge jump (a less steep rise and the blurring of spectral features) is observed, indicating considerable degradation in the long-range order and size effects. However, EELS with a nanobeam exhibits a threshold blueshift and parabolic behavior for some selected wires indicating that there are grains smaller than the nominal diameter in these nanowires. Thus, XAFS probes the average of a distribution of wires of various sizes of which the majority is too large to exhibit detectable quantum confinement behavior (blueshift) observed and inferred in EELS and XEOL. The results and their implications are discussed.

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 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207