MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051968713 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.72.115420

Diffusion-limited kinetics of terrace growth on GaAs(110)

2005· article· en· W2051968713 on OpenAlexaff
P. Piercy, A. M.-J. Castonguay

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnealing (glass)Materials scienceCondensed matter physicsKineticsActivation energySurface diffusionExponentSurface finishLow-energy electron diffractionMolecular physicsElectron diffractionDiffractionCrystallographyOpticsPhysicsChemistryAdsorptionComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kinetics of thermal annealing of surface roughness created by low-energy ion bombardment of GaAs(110) is characterized in situ by a low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) spot profile analysis to investigate the underlying diffusion mechanisms involved. The coarsening of the step-and-terrace structure on the partially annealed surface is observed, showing power-law growth of the average terrace width $l\ensuremath{\sim}{t}^{\ensuremath{\beta}}$ with an exponent $\ensuremath{\beta}=0.23\ensuremath{-}0.26$ over two orders of magnitude in annealing time $t$ in the temperature range 660--740 K. However, the terrace height distribution is shown to vary little with annealing, providing evidence for an Ehrlich-Schwoebel barrier at step edges. The LEED analysis also detects an additional, low amplitude height distribution contributing an interface width of less than 0.03 nm, which is interpreted as elastic deformation around subsurface defects and exhibits much slower relaxation kinetics during annealing than the terrace growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207