MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058094984 · doi:10.1002/sia.3073

Octadecyltrichlorosilane (OTS): a resist for OMCVD gold nanoparticle growth

2009· article· en· W2058094984 on OpenAlexafffund
Asad Rezaee, Kenneth Kar Ho Wong, Touraj Manifar, Silvia Mittler

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsOctadecyltrichlorosilaneResistX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyMonolayerContact angleSelf-assembled monolayerNanotechnologyNanoparticleColloidal goldChemical vapor depositionChemistryEllipsometryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringThin filmLayer (electronics)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One application of octadecyltrichlorosilane (OTS) self‐assembled monolayers (SAMs) is its use as thin film resists. In this work, we demonstrated that OTS SAMs can be reliable resists for organo‐metallic chemical vapor deposition (OMCVD) grown gold nanoparticles (Au NPs). In optical sensing applications based on Au NPs, one candidate system consists of patterned OTS SAMs and precisely grown OMCVD Au NPs for achieving a high sensitivity. As an initial step, the OTS SAMs need to perfectly resist the OMCVD Au NP growth. Hence the optimized formation of the OTS SAMs affected by different assembly times and baking temperatures was studied by contact angle, ellipsometry, XPS, SEM, and atomic force microscopy (AFM). To demonstrate the ability of the OTS SAMs to resist OMCVD Au NP growth, the OMCVD process was carried out on two sets of samples: OTS SAMs fabricated under optimized conditions on one set and the other set without OTS SAMs. High‐resolution XPS, RBS, SEM, and ultraviolet‐visible (UV‐Vis) spectroscopy were applied to study the growth of Au NPs on the samples with and without OTS SAM resists. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurface and Interface AnalysisSame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207