Comparison of the Optical Properties of Tantalum Pentoxide, Ta<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>, Anodically Grown from E-beam Deposited Tantalum, Ta, with Ta<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> E-beam Deposited from a Ta<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> Source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optical properties of Ta2O5 anodically grown from e-beam deposited Ta have been compared with Ta2O5 e-beam deposited from a Ta2O5 source. Optical data were collected with a J. V. Woollam Co., Inc., Spectroscopic Ellipsometer, VASE. Measurements were conducted under the same conditions for both types of samples. Within the precision limits of our ellipsometer and for the thicknesses of the films studied, the absorption coefficient, α, was zero for anodically grown Ta2O5 over a very wide range of wavelengths, including the 1310 nm and 1550 nm telecommunications windows. By contrast, the e-beam deposited Ta2O5 layers had only a very narrow window in the visible range. Both types had the absorption coefficient of zero at some wavelengths in the ultraviolet range. The anodically grown Ta2O5 layers had a calculated average energy gap of 4.23 eV +/- 0.02 eV and a maximum dielectric constant of 28.73.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".