MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149474659 · doi:10.1149/1.3367210

Effect of Annealing Time on the Growth, Structure, and Luminescence of Nitride-Passivated Silicon Nanoclusters

2010· article· en· W2149474659 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick R. Wilson, Tyler Roschuk, Kayne Dunn, Elise Normand, Evgueni Chelomentsev, Jacek Wójcik, Peter Mascher

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsNanoclustersPhotoluminescenceMaterials scienceAnnealing (glass)SiliconLuminescenceSilicon nitrideNitrideNanocrystalline siliconOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyCrystalline siliconMetallurgyAmorphous siliconLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid thermal annealing has been used to study the changes in luminescence and structure from silicon-rich silicon nitride films for annealing times ranging from 2 seconds to 1 hour at 600 and 800°C. Silicon nanoclusters formed within the silicon nitride host matrix provided the source of the luminescence in the films through quantum confinement effects. Room temperature photoluminescence spectra exhibited a large, abrupt red-shift in emission after only 2 seconds of annealing, indicating early formation and growth of the silicon nanoclusters occurs through a fast transient diffusion mechanism. This initial shift was followed by a slower but steady growth of the nanoclusters as the annealing time was increased further. X-ray absorption near edge structure at the Si K- and L3,2-edges supported the trends observed in the photoluminescence spectra, providing evidence of silicon nanocluster growth and restructuring of the silicon nitride host matrix over the course of annealing.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207