Solid-state formation of titanium carbide and molybdenum carbide as contacts for carbon-containing semiconductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metal carbides are good candidates to contact carbon-based semiconductors (SiC, diamond, and carbon nanotubes). Here, we report on an in situ study of carbide formation during the solid-state reaction between thin Ti or Mo films and C substrates. Titanium carbide (TiC) was previously reported as a contact material to diamond and carbon nanotubes. However, the present study shows two disadvantages for the solid-state reaction of Ti and C. First, because Ti reacts readily with oxygen, a capping layer should be included to enable carbide formation. Second, the TiC phase can exist over a wide range of composition (about 10%, i.e., from Ti0.5C0.5 to Ti0.6C0.4), leading to significant variations in the properties of the material formed. The study of the Mo–C system suggests that molybdenum carbide (Mo2C) is a promising alternative, since the phase shows a lower resistivity (about 45% lower than for TiC), the carbide forms below 900°C, and its formation is less sensitive to oxidation as compared with the Ti–C system. The measured resistivity for Mo2C is ρ=59μΩcm, and from kinetic studies an activation energy for Mo2C formation of Ea=3.15±0.15eV was obtained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".