Low- and High-Frequency Pulse Current and Pulse Reverse Plating of Copper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A model for galvanostatic pulse plating via pulse current (PC) and pulse reverse (PR) modes has been developed and compared with experimentally obtained electrode responses during copper deposition from a solution onto a rotating disk electrode. In addition to all forms of mass transport, electrode kinetics, and homogeneous reactions, the model incorporates capacitance effects due to double-layer charging and adsorption of an intermediate. Two important modifications from our previous model have been made: fully transient rather than steady-state electrode kinetics and a series rather than parallel connection between the adsorption pseudocapacitance and faradaic reactions. The model provides excellent quantitative agreement with the experimental results for both PR and PC plating for the entire range of conditions studied and shows considerable improvement over the previous version, particularly for PR plating. Fitting the model to some of the experimental data reveals that the double-layer capacity varies inversely with the square root of frequency for pulses of 500 Hz or more. Electrode responses do not totally become dc-like at frequencies as high as 50 kHz. Furthermore, at high enough frequencies (⩾5 kHz) during PR plating, the electrode potentials do not rise above the open-circuit potential during the reverse-time, indicating that copper dissolution does not occur and leading to a response similar to that observed during high-frequency PC plating. © 2003 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".