MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591951130 · doi:10.1117/12.2251562

Tailoring the refractive index of ITO thin films by genetic algorithm optimization of the reactive DC-sputtering parameters

2017· article· en· W2591951130 on OpenAlexaff
Elnaz Afshari Pour, Cyrus Shafai

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicZnO doping and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractive indexSputteringThin filmMaterials scienceDeposition (geology)Indium tin oxideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Sputter depositionAlgorithmOptoelectronicsOpticsComputer scienceNanotechnologyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The variation of oxygen concentration in the Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) structure highly impacts its electrical and optical characteristics. In this work, we investigated the effect of oxygen partial flow (O<sub>2</sub>/O<sub>2</sub>+Ar) and deposition pressure (<i>p</i>) on the refractive index (<i>n</i>) of reactive sputtered ITO thin films. A statistical study with a Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimization was implemented to find optimal deposition conditions for obtaining particular refractive indices. Several samples of ITO thin films with refractive indices ranging from 1.69 - 2.1 were deposited by DC sputtering technique at various oxygen concentrations and deposition pressures, in order to develop the statistical database. A linear polynomial surface was locally fitted to the data of O<sub>2</sub>/O<sub>2</sub>+Ar, <i>p</i>, and <i>n</i> of deposited films. This surface was then used as the fitness function of the GA. By defining the desired n as the objective value of the GA, the optimized deposition conditions can be found. Two cases were experimentally demonstrated, with the GA determining the needed process parameters to deposit ITO with <i>n</i>=2.2 and <i>n</i>=1.6. Measured results were very close to desired values, with <i>n</i>=2.25 and <i>n</i>=1.62, demonstrating the effectiveness of this method for predicting needed reactive sputtering conditions to enable arbitrary refractive indices.

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)0.001
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicZnO doping and propertiesFrench-language works237,207