MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TEM 3-beam study of annealing effects in InGaNAs using ab-initio structure factors for strain-relaxed supercells

2011· article· en· W2042903696 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Schowalter, Oleg Rubel, Dan Hu, D. M. Schaadt, M. Hetterich, P. Gilet, R. Fritz, Kerstin Volz, Andreas Rosenauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTransmission electron microscopyMolecular physicsAnnealing (glass)Atomic unitsAb initioStoichiometryLattice (music)ScatteringScanning transmission electron microscopyValence (chemistry)Density functional theoryAb initio quantum chemistry methodsCondensed matter physicsOpticsChemistryComputational chemistryNanotechnologyMoleculePhysicsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a Transmission Electron Microscopy 3-beam technique based on the interference of 000, 200 and 220. Nonlinear imaging artefacts are eliminated by Fourier filtering, yielding 200 and 220 lattice fringe images, from which chemically sensitive contrast and strain are measured, respectively. In this way, In and N composition can be mapped at atomic scale in quaternary InGaNAs by comparison with simulated reference data. Our Bloch wave simulations are based on structure factors derived from supercells with 106 atoms, which have been strain-relaxed by valence force field methods. Additionally, the influence of electron redistributions due to chemical bonding is accounted for by modified atomic scattering amplitudes derived from density functional theory. By comparing local compositions in an annealed In0.28Ga0.72N0.025As0.975 sample with its as-grown counterpart, we find homogenisation of InGaNAs layer thickness and –stoichiometry upon annealing.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207