Indium tin oxide nanowhisker morphology control by vapour–liquid–solid glancing angle deposition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new growth technique for indium tin oxide nanowhiskers with increased control over feature size and spacing is reported. The technique is based on a unique combination of self-catalysed vapour-liquid-solid (VLS) growth and glancing angle deposition (GLAD). This VLS-GLAD technique provides enhanced control over nanowhisker morphology as the effect of typical VLS growth parameters (e.g. flux rate, temperature) is amplified at large deposition angles characteristic of GLAD. Spatial modulation of the collimated growth flux controls trunk width, number and orientation of branches, and overall nanowhisker density. Here we report the influence of growth conditions (including deposition angle, flux rate, nominal pitch and substrate temperature) on nanowhisker morphology, with specific focus on the effect of large deposition angles. Sheet resistance and transmission of the films were measured to characterize their performance as transparent conductive oxides. Hybrid nanostructured films grown in this study include high surface area nanowhiskers protruding from a conductive film, ideal for transparent conductive electrode applications.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it