MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498212043 · doi:10.1063/1.4959090

Theoretical and experimental investigations of nano-Schottky contacts

2016· article· en· W2498212043 on OpenAlexaff
Moh’d Rezeq, Khouloud Eledlebi, Mohammed Ismail, Ripon Kumar Dey, Bo Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanowire Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchottky barrierSemiconductorSchottky diodeMaterials scienceElectrical contactsPlanarNanometreNano-OptoelectronicsCondensed matter physicsNanotechnologyElectric fieldNanoscopic scaleMetal–semiconductor junctionScalingMetalPhysicsDiodeComposite materialGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formation of metal-semiconductor (M-S) contacts at sub-20 nanometer range is a key requirement for down-scaling of semiconductor devices. However, electrical measurements of M-S contacts at this scale have exhibited dramatic change in the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics compared to that of conventional (or planar) Schottky contacts. This change is actually attributed to the limited metal contact region where the transferred charge from the semiconductor into the metal is confined to a small surface area, which in turn results in an enhanced electric field at the nano-M-S interface. We here present detailed theoretical models to analyze the nano-M-S junctions at 10 nm contact range and then implement this analysis on the experimental data we conducted under these conditions. Both theoretical and experimental results demonstrate a significant effect of the contact size on the electronic structure of the M-S junctions and thus on the I-V characteristics. This effect is rather prominent when the size of the metal contact is substantially smaller than the width of conventional depletion region of the relevant planar M-S contacts.

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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicNanowire Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207