MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reactively Magnetron Sputter-Deposited Ti (C,N) Nanocomposite Thin Films: Composition and Thermal Stability

2018· article· en· W2899661288 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Osama A. Fouad, Hongying Lin, S. İsmat Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coating Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanocompositeThermal stabilitySputter depositionThin filmCavity magnetronSputteringChemical engineeringComposite materialNanotechnologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Titanium carbonitride thin films were grown by reactive magnetron sputtering deposition of titanium carbide target in Ar/N2 gas mixture on p-type silicon (100) substrates. With the increase of sputtering power up to 125W, the deposition rate and films thickness reached a maximum of 14nm/min and 430nm, respectively. A thick film of about 2200nm could be deposited for 120 min at the optimum deposition pressure of 20mTorr. Cathode current decreased from about 290mA to reach a value of about 235mA as the N2 flow percentage increased from 0 to 100%. X-ray diffraction analyses of the deposited films confirmed the formation of titanium carbide and carbonitride layers as the nitrogen gas concentrations in the process gas were increased. SEM image of the deposited titanium carbonitride thin film for 5 min deposition time showed that the film started to grow as tiny particles of size as low as about 140nm, which in later stage coalesced together to form bigger grains and finally a continuous film. The deposited film shows good thermal stability upon annealing in air and in vacuum at 700oC for 2 hours.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coating Science and TechnologySame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207