Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of nanocavities in InP(001) by room-temperature He implantation and subsequent thermal annealing was studied using a combination of high-resolution x-ray diffraction (HRXRD) and cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy (XTEM) analyses. The nanocavities size and depth distributions were measured as a function of He ion dose φHe (1×1016 to 9×1016 cm−2) and ion energy E (25 to 70 keV), as well as annealing temperature Ta (600 to 750 °C) and time ta (5 to 25 min). HRXRD scans from annealed samples indicate an expansion of the InP lattice, contrary to what is usually observed following heavy-ion implantation. The critical φHe and Ta values for the formation of nanocavities were found by XTEM analysis to be between 1 and 2×1016 cm−2 and between 600 and 620 °C, respectively. Cavities of diameter 4–50 nm with {110}, {101}, and {001} facets were obtained. Increasing Ta and ta resulted in larger cavities and increasing φHe produced a larger number of cavities. Furthermore we find that nanocavities are metastable as their size first increases with annealing temperature and time but then decreases until they disappear for ta>25 min at Ta=640 °C or ta>10 min at Ta=750 °C. Results are compared with similar work carried out on He-implanted silicon and differences between the two materials are explained in terms of defect diffusivity and surface energy, higher diffusivity enhancing cavity collapse and lower surface energy enhancing cavity growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".