Optical Properties of Undoped and Indium-doped Tin Oxide Thin Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thin films of Tin Oxide (SnO2), having thickness of 200 nm, were formed on to glass substrates by thermal evaporation of high-purity SnO2 powder in vacuum at various substrate temperatures (TS), ranging between 25 and 200°C. SnO2 films with varying thickness were also prepared for a fixed TS = 100°C. Further, doping of SnO2 films with Indium (In) was accomplished through solid state diffusion process by successive deposition of SnO2 and In films and subsequent annealing at 200°C for 10 minutes. Both undoped and doped films were characterized optically by UV-VIS-NIR spectrophotometry in the photon wavelength ranging from 300 to 2500 nm. In the visible photon wavelength range, the average optical transmittance (T%) of the films with varying TS was found to be 85%. The maximum value of T % was found to be 89 % around the wavelength of 700nm. The variation of absorption coefficient with photon energy in the fundamental absorption region is the steepest for TS = 100°C. The sub-band gap (SBG) absorption is also minimum for this Ts. A fluctuating behavior of the band gap energy (Eg) with Ts is observed attaining the highest value of 3.59 eV for Ts = 100°C. The band gap energy increases with thickness but T% in the visible range decreases. The T% in the visible range varies inversely with indium doping, being highest for undoped films. The Eg increases upto 2 wt% In doping and gradually decreases for enhanced doping. It seems reasonable to conclude that In doping does not bring favorable optical characteristics. Undoped SnO2 films having thickness of 200 nm and formed at substrate temperature of 100°C yield essential acceptable properties for photovoltaic applications.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jbas.v35i1.7975Journal of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Vol.35, No.1, 99-111, 2011
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".