Effects of interfacial oxide layers of the electrode metals on the electrical characteristics of organic thin-film transistors with HfO2 gate dielectric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HfO2-based devices employing various electrode metals (Al, W, Pt, Cu, and Cr) were fabricated and characterized in order to examine the importance of the choice of metal electrode when sputter-depositing HfO2 films. It was found that metal-insulator-metal capacitors with an Al bottom electrode exhibit a significantly smaller leakage current and a larger breakdown field strength than devices using W, Pt, Cu, and Cr electrodes. By examining HfO2/metal interfaces with x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, it was found that metal electrodes are oxidized during the deposition of HfO2, resulting in interfacial oxide layers of the electrode metals (Al2O3, WO3, PtO, CuO, and Cr2O3 + CrO3) between the metal electrode and the HfO2 layer. The formation of a metal oxide interlayer is a consequence of the high-energy oxygen ions generated during HfO2 sputtering. The difference in the device performance was attributed to the electronic properties of the oxide interlayers. It was found that when the oxide interlayers are semiconducting (e.g., WO3, PtO, CuO, or Cr2O3 + CrO3), devices have high leakage currents and low breakdown field strengths, and an insulating oxide interlayer (Al2O3) enhances these device characteristics. Organic thin-film transistors (OTFTs) using a HfO2 dielectric layer showed that an Al gate has a much lower off-state current, larger on/off ratio, and smaller sub-threshold slope compared with OTFTs using a Cr electrode. These results demonstrate the importance of the metal gate electrode and the electrical characteristics of its oxide when using the sputter-deposition of HfO2 to fabricate thin-film transistors.
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) | 0.001 | 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".