MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756105842 · doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00794

Three-fold Symmetric Doping Mechanism in GaAs Nanowires

2017· article· en· W2756105842 on OpenAlexafffund
Hadi Tavakoli Dastjerdi, Elisabetta Maria Fiordaliso, Egor D. Leshchenko, Azadeh Akhtari-Zavareh, Takeshi Kasama, Martin Aagesen, В. Г. Дубровский, Ray LaPierre

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanowire Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersDanmarks Tekniske UniversitetUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education and Science of the Russian FederationEnerginet.dk
KeywordsNanowireDopantDopingMolecular beam epitaxyMaterials scienceElectron holographyPerpendicularCondensed matter physicsVapor–liquid–solid methodNanotechnologySemiconductorEpitaxyChemical physicsOptoelectronicsCrystallographyChemistryTransmission electron microscopyGeometryPhysicsLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new dopant incorporation mechanism in Ga-assisted GaAs nanowires grown by molecular beam epitaxy is reported. Off-axis electron holography revealed that p-type Be dopants introduced in situ during molecular beam epitaxy growth of the nanowires were distributed inhomogeneously in the nanowire cross-section, perpendicular to the growth direction. The active dopants showed a remarkable azimuthal distribution along the (111)B flat top of the nanowires, which is attributed to preferred incorporation along 3-fold symmetric truncated facets under the Ga droplet. A diffusion model is presented to explain the unique radial and azimuthal variation of the active dopants in the GaAs nanowires.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicNanowire Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207