Reaction and Energy Levels at Oxide–Oxide Heterojunction Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oxide–oxide heterojunction interfaces (OHIs) are foundations for many applications such as transistors, optoelectronic devices, and chemical catalysis. The formation of OHIs involves complex events such as charge transfer, interfacial diffusion, and chemical reactions. These events collectively contribute to an OHI's energy structure and to its ability to perform an intended application. Here, multiple MoO3/oxide interfaces are studied at which changes in multiple oxidation states Mox+ can be easily tracked. For the formation of reactive interfaces, it is found that the primary driving force behind the reduction of MoO3 is redox reactions at the interfaces. For the nonreactive interface, the reduction of MoO3 occurs as a result of various factors such as oxygen deficiency. At these OHIs, band bending and formation of interface dipole are observed. It is discovered that the degrees of interface dipole and work function at the OHIs scale linearly as a function of the contacting oxide's work function. These findings provide the guide in designing OHIs for a specific application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".