MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564360830 · doi:10.3329/jbas.v40i2.30773

Effect of Doping Concentration on the Optical Properties of Indium-Doped Gallium Arsenide Thin FILMS

2016· article· en· W2564360830 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Saiful Islam, Chitra Das, Mehnaz Sharmin, Kazi Md Amzad Hussain, Shamima Choudhury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersBangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
KeywordsMaterials scienceThin filmIndiumDopingMolar absorptivityTransmittanceBand gapSubstrate (aquarium)Refractive indexAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Attenuation coefficientAbsorption (acoustics)OpticsOptoelectronicsChemistryNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of indium doping (concentration 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4%) on the optical properties of GaAs thin films were studied. Thin films of 600 nm were grown onto chemically and ultrasonically cleaned glass substrate by thermal evaporation method in high vacuum (~10-4 Pa) at 50°C fixed substrate temperature. The samples were annealed for 15 minutes at a fixed temperature of 200°C. The thicknesses of films were being measured in situ by a quartz crystal thickness monitor during deposition. The transmittance and reflectance data were found using UV-VIS-NIR spectrophotometer in the photon wavelength range of 310 ~ 2500 nm. These data were utilized to compute the absorption coefficient, refractive index, extinction co-efficient and band gap energy of the studied films. Here transmittance was found 78 for 0.2% indium doping concentration. The band gap energy decreased with the increase of doping concentration.Journal of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences, Vol. 40, No. 2, 179-186, 2016

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)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bangladesh Academy of SciencesSame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207