MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030105813 · doi:10.1088/2632-959x/ab976c

In-situ observation of nucleation and property evolution in films grown with an atmospheric pressure spatial atomic layer deposition system

2020· article· en· W3030105813 on OpenAlexafffund
Kissan Mistry, Alexander Jones, Manfred Kao, Travis Yeow, Mustafa Yavuz, Kevin P. Musselman

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Express · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsNucleationDeposition (geology)Materials scienceThin filmAtomic layer depositionSubstrate (aquarium)Refractive indexBand gapLayer (electronics)SpectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsChemical engineeringOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyChemistryOrganic chemistrySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Atmospheric pressure—spatial atomic layer deposition (AP-SALD) is a promising open-air deposition technique for high-throughput manufacturing of nanoscale films, yet the nucleation and property evolution in these films has not been studied in detail. In this work, in situ reflectance spectroscopy was implemented in an AP-SALD system to measure the properties of Zinc oxide (ZnO) and Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) films during their deposition. For the first time, this revealed a substrate nucleation period for this technique, where the length of the nucleation time was sensitive to the deposition parameters. The in situ characterization of thickness showed that varying the deposition parameters can achieve a wide range of growth rates (0.1–3 nm/cycle), and the evolution of optical properties throughout film growth was observed. For ZnO, the initial bandgap increased when deposited at lower temperatures and subsequently decreased as the film thickness increased. Similarly, for Al2O3 the refractive index was lower for films deposited at a lower temperature and subsequently increased as the film thickness increased. Notably, where other implementations of reflectance spectroscopy require previous knowledge of the film’s optical properties to fit the spectra to optical dispersion models, the approach developed here utilizes a large range of initial guesses that are inputted into a Levenberg-Marquardt fitting algorithm in parallel to accurately determine both the film thickness and complex refractive index.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano ExpressSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207