MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129947342 · doi:10.1088/0022-3727/40/13/015

Synthesis and field electron emission characteristics of diamond multilayer films grown by graphite etching

2007· article· en· W2129947342 on OpenAlexafffund
X. Lu, Q. Yang, C. Xiao, Akira Hirose, T. Tiedje

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics D Applied Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDiamond and Carbon-based Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsField electron emissionGraphiteDiamondEtching (microfabrication)Materials scienceElectronField (mathematics)NanotechnologyOptoelectronicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diamond multilayer film with nanocrystalline diamond film coated on a layer of diamond nanocone film, was synthesized on silicon substrates by using in situ graphite etching in a hot filament chemical vapour deposition reactor. Many small and sharp protrusions on the surface of the multilayer film were observed using scanning electron microscope and atomic force microscope. The multilayer film exhibits lower turn-on field and larger emission current than flat diamond films and diamond nanocone films. Field electron emission measurements at different residual gas pressures indicate that emission current of the multilayer film shows no obvious degradation and the Fowler–Nordheim (F–N) plots parallel to each other when the residual gas pressure is increased from 10−7 to 10−5 Torr. At a higher pressure of 10−3 Torr, obvious degradation of emission current was observed. The slope of the F–N plot becomes larger, indicating that the work function is increased. The possible reason is that the surface of the multilayer film is fully covered by residual gas molecules.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics D Applied PhysicsSame topicDiamond and Carbon-based Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207