MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084191742 · doi:10.1063/1.2740359

The role of proximity caps during the annealing of UV-ozone oxidized GaAs

2007· article· en· W2084191742 on OpenAlexafffund
Souma Ghosh, Mark C. Biesinger, Ray LaPierre, Peter Kruse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnnealing (glass)X-ray photoelectron spectroscopyGalliumOxideDesorptionMaterials scienceGallium arsenideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryOptoelectronicsChemical engineeringMetallurgyAdsorptionPhysical chemistryEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides a deeper insight into the chemistry and physics of the common engineering practice of using a proximity cap, while annealing compound semiconductors such as GaAs. We have studied the cases of a GaAs proximity cap, a Si proximity cap, and no proximity cap. Using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, it has been found that annealing increases the gallium to arsenic ratio in the oxide layer in all cases. During the annealing of UV-ozone oxidized GaAs, it has been observed that GaAs proximity caps also serve as a sacrificial layer to accelerate the desorption of oxide species. In all cases surface deterioration due to pit formation has been observed, and the depth of pits is found to depend on the effective role played by the capping material. Energy dispersive x-ray analysis provides additional evidence that pits mainly consist of elemental As and gallium oxide, with most of the elemental As situated at the pit-substrate interface. Deposition of a thin layer of gold and subsequent annealing to 500°C for 300s under different capping conditions shows the use of a proximate cap to be practically insignificant in annealing Au deposited films.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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