Monolayer-Directed Electrodeposition of Oxide Thin Films: Surface Morphology versus Chemical Modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we describe the general role that surface morphology and chemical nature play in guiding the cathodic deposition of oxide thin films onto electrode surfaces. By use of a “featureless” stamp for microcontact printing (μCP), the pregrooved microfeatures (“mountains” and “valleys” representing the track trails) of recordable compact disc (CD-R) gold substrates can be selectively modified with OH- or CH 3 -terminated self-assembled monolayers (SAMs). For comparison, “flat” gold substrates were patterned with the above SAMs in parallel “microstrips” that are analogous to the CD-R substrate (but no height differences). Electrochemical deposition of zirconia thin films showed that, on the CD-R substrates, surface morphology (height difference) dominates over the blocking effects of the SAMs; that is, deposition occurred primarily on the mountains despite these sites being modified with organic monolayers. For flat gold substrates it was found that n -alkanethiolate SAMs block deposition in modified areas while directing the deposition to regions of the bare surface. When flat gold substrates were modified with CH 3 - and OH-terminated SAMs in alternating microstrips, deposition was confined to “narrower” regions that are different from the periodicity on the stamp. The type of microstructures and feature sizes of the zirconia thin film were dependent on scan rate, number of cycles, and terminal groups of the SAM to a lesser extent.
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".