ZnO Films from Thermal Oxidation of Zn Films: Effect of the Thickness of the Precursor Films on the Structural, Morphological, and Optical Properties of the Products
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zinc oxide (ZnO) films with different structural, morphological, and optical properties were obtained by (fixed) thermal oxidation of deposited metallic zinc (Zn) films. The main characteristics of the oxidized films are discussed in terms of the Zn film thickness. On-axis preferential crystallographic oriented growth of ZnO can be tuned based on the control of the thickness of the deposited Zn: c-axis (a-axis) for the thinnest (thicker) Zn film. The thicker ZnO film is rather a-textured, whereas the grains hosted by the ZnO films corresponding to the Zn films of intermediate thicknesses are more randomly oriented. For Zn films of ever-increasing thickness, a tendency towards the crystallization of larger ZnO nanocrystals holds, combined with a continuous increment on the surface roughness. In contrast, the fundamental bandgap of the resultant oxide-based films decreases with thickness. The roughness of the ZnO films is not directly measured. It is qualitatively described by the analysis of Zn-film micrographs obtained by Scanning Electron Microscopy and by the demonstration of strong optical scattering interactions present in the thicker ZnO films by their random lasing activity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it