MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946810566 · doi:10.1149/09001.0079ecst

Flash Lamp Annealed Polycrystalline Silicon TFT Dependence on Surface Morphology and the Back-Channel Material Interface

2019· article· en· W2946810566 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn Packard, Robert G. Manley, Karl D. Hirschman

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Transactions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThin-Film Transistor Technologies
Canadian institutionsResearch & Development Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials sciencePolycrystalline siliconNanocrystalline siliconSiliconSilicon nitrideOptoelectronicsThin-film transistorAmorphous siliconLOCOSAnnealing (glass)Amorphous solidComposite materialCrystalline siliconLayer (electronics)CrystallographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work studies the operation of polycrystalline silicon p-channel TFTs prepared via Flash Lamp Annealing (FLA). Silicon nitride was investigated as a back-channel interface layer to suppress void formation via dewetting of molten silicon. Predefined polygons of amorphous silicon were crystallized on display glass using single-pulse FLA exposure. Two distinct surface morphologies were realized within the same exposed region as a result of the underlying silicon nitride film and localized variation in the substrate thermal contact during PECVD deposition of amorphous silicon. While both resulting morphologies have polysilicon grains on micron scale, differences in TFT electrical behavior appear to coincide with differences in grain structure and boundary regions. The electrical results also indicate inferior electrical performance in response to the back-channel silicon nitride in comparison to results demonstrated on SiO2. Extracted parameters provide a quantitative assessment of the device operation as related to surface morphology and the back-channel material interface.

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 score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS TransactionsSame topicThin-Film Transistor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207