MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081465478 · doi:10.1063/1.4751267

Void evolution in silicon under inert and dry oxidizing ambient annealing and the role of a Si1−xGex epilayer cap

2012· article· en· W2081465478 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hasanuzzaman, Yaser M. Haddara, Andrew P. Knights

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon and Solar Cell Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoid (composites)Annealing (glass)SiliconMaterials scienceOxidizing agentGermaniumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MetallurgyCrystallographyComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voids were formed in silicon (Si) and silicon germanium/silicon (Si1−xGex/Si) samples containing 5% or 9% Ge (at. %) by 30 keV, 5 × 1016 cm−2 helium (He+) implantation followed by annealing in nitrogen (N2) or dry oxygen (O2) atmospheres in the temperature range 960–1110 °C. Si1−xGex thicknesses were 60 nm and 20 nm for 5% and 9% Ge, respectively. He+ implantation energy was set such that in Si1−xGex/Si samples voids were formed inside the Si substrate. An increase in annealing temperature resulted in an increase in the average void diameter and decrease in the average void density. Due to the presence of implantation damage and the relatively high temperature anneals, Ge diffusion occurs, which results in a stress gradient in the sample that interacts with the void layer. The presence of Ge also results in weaker Si-Ge bonds (compared to Si-Si bonds). This leads to an increase in the rate of cavity migration providing a likely explanation for the increase in the average void diameter and decrease in the average void density in Si1−xGex/Si samples when compared to the similarly prepared Si samples. No impact on the void evolution process was observed as a result of changing the anneal atmosphere from N2 to dry O2.

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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicSilicon and Solar Cell TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207