MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135950045 · doi:10.1109/sim.1998.785094

Comparison of single and double barrier pseudomorphic doped-channel GaInP/GaInAs/GaAs HFET's: performance and isolation properties

2002· article· en· W2135950045 on OpenAlexaff
S. McLaughlin, Xiangang Xu, S. P. Watkins, C. R. Bolognesi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceBarrier layerOptoelectronicsHeterojunctionDopingDouble heterostructureGallium arsenideTransistorLayer (electronics)VoltageElectrical engineeringDiodeNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doped-channel GaInP/GaInAs/GaAs pseudomorphic heterostructure field-effect transistors (HFETs) were fabricated both with and without a GaInP barrier layer under the GaInAs channel. Two sets of alloy compositions were investigated: Ga/sub 0.85/In/sub 0.15/As channels with Ga/sub 0.51/In/sub 0.49/P barriers, and Ga/sub 0.70/In/sub 0.30/As channels with Ga/sub 0.62/In/sub 0.38/P barriers. For each composition, 1.1 /spl mu/m gate length devices with single and double barrier structures showed similar maximum drain currents (I/sub dmas/), and peak transconductances (g/sub m/), while the double barrier devices showed reduced output conductances (g/sub ds/) compared to the single barrier devices, resulting in a 30-50% larger voltage gain. RF measurements showed a higher maximum frequency of oscillation (f/sub max/) for the double barrier devices of both compositions. For mesa etch isolation of the double barrier devices, it was found to be necessary to remove the bottom GaInP barrier layer to achieve satisfactory device isolation. We speculate that a parasitic 2-dimensional electron gas may be formed at the interface between the bottom GaInP barrier and the GaAs buffer layer.

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)0.000
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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207