X-ray photoemission study of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>Sr</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>FeMoO</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mn>6</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>and<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>SrMoO</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>films epitaxially grown on MgO(001): Near-surface chemical-state composition analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thin films of the double perovskite ferromagnet ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ have been grown on MgO(001) substrates by pulsed laser deposition at temperatures as low as $600\text{ }\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}\text{C}$. High-resolution X-ray diffraction studies revealed that the deposited films are single-phase ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ epitaxially grown on the MgO substrate. The film grown at $800\text{ }\ifmmode^\circ\else\textdegree\fi{}\text{C}$ was post-annealed in oxygen producing epitaxial films of ${\text{SrMoO}}_{4}$ on top of the ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ film. The corresponding magnetization data showed that the post-annealing treatment lowered the saturation magnetic moment from $3.4{\ensuremath{\mu}}_{B}$ per formula unit (or /f.u.) for the as-grown ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ film to $1.4{\ensuremath{\mu}}_{B}/\text{f}\text{.u}\text{.}$ after annealing. X-ray photoemission measurements as a function of sputtering time further revealed the presence of ${\text{SrMoO}}_{4}$ on both the as-grown and annealed films and their corresponding depth profiles indicated a thicker ${\text{SrMoO}}_{4}$ overlayer on the annealed film. The intensity ratios of the $3d$ features of ${\text{Mo}}^{4+}$, ${\text{Mo}}^{5+}$, and ${\text{Mo}}^{6+}$ for ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ remained unchanged with sputtering depth (after 160 s of sputtering) strongly suggesting that the observed secondary phase $({\text{SrMoO}}_{4})$ was formed predominantly on the surface and not in the subgrain boundaries of the as-grown ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ film. The presence of the secondary phase on the surface of the as-grown ${\text{Sr}}_{2}{\text{FeMoO}}_{6}$ film therefore plays a major role in contributing to the observed lower value for the saturation magnetic moment than the theoretical value.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.733 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".