MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473786924 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b03818

Thermal Decomposition of Copper Iminopyrrolidinate Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) Precursors on Silicon Oxide Surfaces

2016· article· en· W2473786924 on OpenAlexaff
Yunxi Yao, Jason P. Coyle, Seán T. Barry, Francisco Zaera

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersBasic Energy Sciences
KeywordsCopperX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyAtomic layer depositionInorganic chemistrySiliconChemistryOxideAdsorptionThermal decompositionDesorptionThermal desorption spectroscopyMetalLayer (electronics)Physical chemistryChemical engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal chemistry of Cu(I)- N - sec -butyl-iminopyrrolidinate on silicon oxide films was characterized by using temperature-programmed desorption (TPD) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Three temperature regimes were identified after adsorption at 100 K: (1) molecular desorption at 240 K; (2) protonation of some of the ligands and formation of the corresponding iminopyrrolidine at 300 K; and (3) fragmentation of the remaining ligands to produce H 2, HCN, and butene, which occurs concurrently with the reduction of the copper ions. Most of the carbon and nitrogen atoms are removed from the surface after the third step, and copper desorbs above 900 K. Adsorption of the copper complex at room temperature leads to a partial early reduction of the metal and to the extended production of sec -butyl-iminopyrrolidine in two broad peaks around 330 and 460 K. Self-limiting adsorption, as required for atomic layer deposition (ALD) processes, is seen up to 500 K, but by 550 K continuous copper deposition takes place. In general, the chemistry of this copper ALD precursor is milder and cleaner on silicon oxide than on metals.

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 score0.266

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207