Functionalization of semiconductor surfaces by organic layers: Concerted cycloaddition versus stepwise free-radical reaction mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the age when the miniaturization trend that has driven the semiconductor industry is reaching its limits, organic modification of semiconductors is emerging as a field that could give much-needed impetus. We review the current state of understanding of the functionalization of C(100), Si(100), and Ge(100) surfaces through chemisorption of alkenes and alkynes, focussing on adsorbate structural control. While reactions on C(100) show most of the properties expected for concerted cycloaddition reactions such as [2+2] and [4+2] (Diels-Alder) processes, reactions on Si(100) present a wide range of variant behaviour, including in some cases the prominence of non-cycloaddition products. More general stepwise free-radical addition processes are seen to provide a better description of reactions on Si(100), their prominence being attributed to either the non-existence or ineffectiveness of p bonding within surface silicon dimers. The investigations of these systems provide not only insight into driving mechanisms for chemisorption but also motivation for the development of new techniques of organic functionalization on semiconductors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".