The role of boron on exchange coupling in NiFe/Ru1−<i>x</i>B<i>x</i>/FeCo trilayer structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we study the interlayer exchange coupling, J, between two NiFe and FeCo layers in a series of NiFe/Ru1−xBx(d)/FeCo synthetic antiferromagnet (SAF) samples, where the thickness of the spacer layer, d, is varied from 0.4 nm to 0.9 nm, and the boron concentration, x, is varied from 0 to 15 at. %. The samples are studied as deposited and after being annealed at 250°C. B is deposited into the Ru spacer layer to investigate what occurs after annealing a FeCoB/Ru/FeCoB SAF structure, which is commonly used in modern nanoscale magnetic devices, in which the FeCoB layer crystallizes to FeCo and B diffuses to adjacent layers. We find that J in as-deposited samples is relatively unaffected by adding up to 15% B into the Ru spacer layer. However, after annealing at 250°C, J changes the sign from antiferromagnetic coupling to ferromagnetic coupling for spacer layers thinner than 0.45nm for 5% and 10% B and thinner than 0.525nm for 15% B. We used transmission electron microscopy energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy in order to investigate the diffusion of atoms within a similar Ta(2.5nm)/NiFe(0.8nm)/Ru1−xBx(23 nm) layer structure. We find that after annealing at 250°C, the sample containing 15% B within the Ru85B15 layer had significantly more diffusion of Fe into the Ru85B15 layer, from the NiFe layer, as compared to the sample with 0% B. Thus, the presence of B within the spacer layer enhances diffusion of Fe into the spacer layer.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".