MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061272296 · doi:10.1063/1.1477264

Experimental investigation and modeling of diffusion in the InP/(In,Ga)As heterostructures

2002· article· en· W2061272296 on OpenAlexaff
Dmitri V. Malakhov, Yaoji Wang, G. C. Weatherly, G.R. Purdy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor materials and interfaces
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperlatticeAnnealing (glass)HeterojunctionTransmission electron microscopyMaterials scienceElectronCondensed matter physicsDopingDiffusion processLattice (music)Field emission gunDiffusionMolecular physicsChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PhysicsThermodynamicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interdiffusion of lattice-matched InP/(In,Ga)As superlattice structures (nominally undoped, p-doped and n-doped) has been studied by analytical electron microscopy (x-ray analysis) using a field emission gun, scanning transmission electron microscope. The point-spread function of the electron beam was used to correct the experimental data (obtained as x-ray maps, 50×50 nm in area) in order to derive diffusion profiles of the group V elements (As, P) after annealing. The results, showing a marked asymmetry in the As profiles after annealing, are interpreted using a model based on the coherent diffusion of the group III and V elements on their own sublattices, each of which is treated as a regular solution. A mathematical procedure, based on the minimization of the difference between the measured and predicted concentration profiles, is employed to compute the two lattice-specific composition-dependent velocities from the experimental diffusion profiles. A good agreement is found between the experimental measurements and the predictions of the model. The role of coherency strains in the interdiffusion process is 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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSemiconductor materials and interfacesFrench-language works237,207