Effect of Hydrogenation on the Optical Properties of Cobalt and Tantalum Thin Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thin films of cobalt are prepared using thermal evaporation method at pressure 10-5 torr. The hydrogen gas is introduced in chamber at different pressure from 0 Psi to 40 Psi to hydrogenate the films. Optical transmission is found to increase and optical absorption decrease with hydrogenation. The optical band gap in Co thin film is found to reduce with increasing of hydrogen pressure. The relative resistance in the Co thin films is also measured at different hydrogen pressures. It is found to vary nonlinear with increase in hydrogen pressure. The Raman Spectroscopy data show that intensity of Raman peaks is decrease with hydrogen pressure. The prepare film after hydrogenation shows the switchable behavior with variable optical band gap. The variation in optical band gap suggests electronic structural phase changes in thin films with hydrogenation. The surface morphology is carrying out for these films with and without hydrogenation by using optical microscope and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Thin films of tantalum also prepared by using DC Sputtering unit and then hydrogenation at pressure 10 Psi. Transmission spectra and surface morphology also carry out for these films before and after hydrogenation. The optimum thickness for switchable mirrors observed was 170.5 nm in case of tantalum.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".