MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>In situ</i>oxygen plasma cleaning of microswitch surfaces—comparison of Ti and graphite electrodes

2016· article· en· W2535957379 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chang-Ho Oh, Frank Streller, W. Robert Ashurst, Robert W. Carpick, Maarten P. Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micromechanics and Microengineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlasma cleaningGraphiteMaterials scienceOhmic contactElectrodePlasmaContact resistanceSputteringOxygenOptoelectronicsLayer (electronics)Composite materialNanotechnologyChemistryThin film

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ohmic micro- and nanoswitches are of interest for a wide variety of applications including radio frequency communications and as low power complements to transistors. In these switches, it is of paramount importance to maintain surface cleanliness in order to prevent frequent failure by tribopolymer growth. To prepare surfaces, an oxygen plasma clean is expected to be beneficial compared to a high temperature vacuum bakeout because of shorter cleaning time (<5 min compared to ~24 h) and active removal of organic contaminants. We demonstrate that sputtering of the electrode material during oxygen plasma cleaning is a critical consideration for effective cleaning of switch surfaces. With Ti electrodes, a TiOx layer forms that increases electrical contact resistance. When plasma-cleaned using graphite electrodes, the resistance of Pt-coated microswitches exhibit a long lifetime with consistently low resistance (<0.5 Ω variation over 300 million cycles) if the test chamber is refilled with ultra-high purity nitrogen and if the devices are not exposed to laboratory air. Their current–voltage characteristic is also linear at the millivolt level. This is important for nanoswitches which will be operated in that range.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Micromechanics and MicroengineeringSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207