MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160128144 · doi:10.4236/snl.2015.54007

Optical and Electrical Properties of Nanocrystalline SnO<sub>2</sub> Thin Films Synthesized by Chemical Bath Deposition Method

2015· article· en· W2160128144 on OpenAlexaff
Suresh Sagadevan, Jiban Podder

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Nanoscience Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThin filmNanocrystalline materialAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Band gapMaterials scienceCrystalliteScanning electron microscopeChemical bath depositionElectrical resistivity and conductivityDielectricChemistryNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical bath deposition (CBD) technique was used for the synthesis of the tin oxide (SnO2) thin films. X-ray diffraction (XRD) was employed to find the crystallite size by using Debye Scherrer’s formula. The surface morphology of SnO2 films was analyzed by the scanning electron microscopic (SEM) studies. The FT-IR spectrum exhibits the strong presence of SnO2. The optical properties of the SnO2 thin films were determined using UV-Visible spectrum. The dielectric studies were carried out at different frequencies and at different temperatures for the prepared SnO2 thin films. Further, electronic properties, such as valence electron plasma energy, average energy gap or Penn gap, Fermi energy and electronic polarizability of the SnO2 thin films, were determined. The ac conductivity of the SnO2 thin films increases with increase in temperature and frequency. The activation energy was determined by using dc electrical conductivity measurement. The Hall properties were also calculated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft Nanoscience LettersSame topicGas Sensing Nanomaterials and SensorsFrench-language works237,207