Composition variation in Al-based dilute nitride alloys using apertureless scanning near-field optical microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
surface grown at 420 °C become larger at higher growth temperatures, and 3D islands appear on the surface at 565 °C. Atomic force microscopy phase measurements reveal a composition difference between the islands and the pits, whereas the sample grown at 420 °C appears to be homogeneous. Confocal Raman spectra show that all the N atoms are bonded to Al instead of Ga. Using apertureless scanning near-field optical microscopy, the luminescence of a gold tip is mapped over the surface of the sample grown at 565 °C. We extract the shift of the tip's surface plasmon resonance and determine the variation in the refractive index between the islands and the pits to be close to 0.2. Numerical simulations of the tip luminescence while in contact with the sample predict a similar variation of ∼0.3 in the refractive indices between AlGaAs islands and AlN pits, a substantially smaller value than the difference in the bulk refractive indices of the two media (∼1.8), which we attribute to a convolution of material distribution in an uneven topography. The excellent agreement between simulation and experiments supports the hypothesis of nitrogen-clustering in the pits.
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) | 0.000 | 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".