MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327987456 · doi:10.1021/nl500891f

Direct Optical Mapping of Anisotropic Stresses in Nanowires Using Transverse Optical Phonon Splitting

2014· article· en· W2327987456 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Vanessa Balois, Norihiko Hayazawa, Alvarado Tarun, Satoshi Kawata, Manfred Reiche, Oussama Moutanabbir

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanowire Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanowireMaterials sciencePhononTransverse planeFabricationRaman spectroscopyRSSRaman scatteringAnisotropyStress (linguistics)OptoelectronicsSemiconductorCharacterization (materials science)Strain engineeringNanoscopic scaleScatteringNanotechnologySiliconCondensed matter physicsOpticsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strain engineering is ubiquitous in the design and fabrication of innovative, high-performance electronic, optoelectronic, and photovoltaic devices. The increasing importance of strain-engineered nanoscale materials has raised significant challenges at both fabrication and characterization levels. Raman scattering spectroscopy (RSS) is one of the most straightforward techniques that have been broadly utilized to estimate the strain in semiconductors. However, this technique is incapable of measuring the individual components of stress, thus only providing the average values of the in-plane strain. This inherit limitation severely diminishes the importance of RSS analysis and makes it ineffective in the predominant case of nanostructures and devices with a nonuniform distribution of strain. Herein, we circumvent this major limitation and demonstrate for the first time the application of RSS to simultaneously probe the two local stress in-plane components in individual ultrathin silicon nanowires based on the imaging of the splitting of the two forbidden transverse optical phonons.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicNanowire Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207