Stepwise Sulfurization from MoO<sub>3</sub> to MoS<sub>2</sub> via Chemical Vapor Deposition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) is used widely to synthesize monolayer and few-layer transition metal dichalcogenide molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), a two-dimensional (2D) material with various applications in nanoelectronics, catalysis, and optoelectronics. However, the CVD synthesis of 2D MoS2 is highly sensitive to small changes in growth parameters and the growth mechanism has not been extensively studied. This work systematically investigates the effect of sulfur concentration on CVD synthesis of MoS2 using molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) and sulfur precursors. We find that with increasing concentration of sulfur vapor, intermediate products of molybdenum dioxide (MoO2) and molybdenum oxysulfide (MoOS2) can form during a stepwise sulfurization of MoO3 to the final product of MoS2. The intermediate MoOS2, formed due to sulfur vapor deficiency, can be fully converted to MoS2 with further sulfurization. We show that the local sulfur to molybdenum vapor ratio at the growth substrate critically determines the growth products. This study thus highlights the importance of keeping the molar ratio of sulfur to molybdenum vapor well in excess of the stoichiometrically required ratio of 3.5:1 in order to grow 2D MoS2.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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 it