MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170740932 · doi:10.1149/1.1603252

Influence of Deuterium and Platinum on the Thermal Oxidation of GaAs

2003· article· en· W2170740932 on OpenAlexaff
G. Hultquist, G. I. Sproule, S. Moisa, M. J. Graham, U. Södervall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Electrochemical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Microstructural Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlatinumX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyAuger electron spectroscopyChemistryDeuteriumDissociation (chemistry)OxygenSubstrate (aquarium)OxideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Inorganic chemistrySecondary ion mass spectrometryMass spectrometryCatalysisChemical engineeringPhysical chemistryAtomic physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal oxidation of GaAs at 500°C in labeled has been studied with gas phase analysis, Auger electron spectroscopy, secondary ion mass spectrometry, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The influence of a few hundred atomic parts per million of deuterium in the GaAs substrate and of surface platinum have been evaluated with respect to oxide growth mechanisms and the degree of As buildup. Deuterium increased the transport from the substrate interface of both Ga and As toward the gas interface thereby lowering the degree of preferential Ga oxidation and As buildup at the substrate interface. Platinum, on the other hand, catalyzed the dissociation of the oxygen molecule at the gas interface and thereby facilitated an increased transport of oxygen toward the substrate interface. That results in an increased overall oxidation rate with a high degree of preferential Ga oxidation and concomitant As buildup. When the oxygen pressure was increased from 20 to 720 mbar, a lowered degree of As buildup was observed due to the lower degree of preferential Ga oxidation. © 2003 The Electrochemical Society. All rights reserved.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Electrochemical SocietySame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207