MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220750890 · doi:10.1063/5.0084360

Cubic boron nitride as a material for future electron device applications: A comparative analysis

2022· article· en· W4220750890 on OpenAlexafffund
John Chilleri, Poppy Siddiqua, Michael S. Shur, Stephen K. O’Leary

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersRES’EAU-WaterNET
KeywordsMaterials scienceGallium nitrideWurtzite crystal structureBoron nitrideWide-bandgap semiconductorGallium arsenideDiamondOptoelectronicsSiliconGermaniumNanotechnologyZincMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing upon a collection of electron transport results, coupled with a variety of other material parameters, we set expectations on the upper limits to device performance of zinc blende boron-nitride-based electron devices. We examine how the device performance varies with the device length-scale, noting that a diversity of physical regimes are experienced as the device length-scale reduces from that corresponding to a long electron device, i.e., 100 μm, to the sub-micron level. Results corresponding to zinc blende boron nitride are contrasted with those associated with germanium, silicon, gallium arsenide, the 4H-phase of silicon carbide, wurtzite gallium nitride, and diamond. The electron device performance metrics that we focus upon for the purposes of this analysis include the effective mobility, accounting for the transition between the ballistic and the collision-dominated electron transport regimes, and the cutoff frequency.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics LettersSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207