Periodic microtwinning as a possible mechanism for the accommodation of the epitaxial film-substrate mismatch in the La1-xSrxMnO3/SrTiO3 system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure and microstructure of laser-deposited La1−xSr x MnO3(x ≈ 0.1) films on SrTiO3(100) single-crystal substrates have been studied by means of electron diffraction and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy. The film–substrate interfaces are found to be perfectly coherent and in particular to be free of interfacial dislocations, the small misfit being accommodated either elastically or by the formation of periodic microtwins. Cross-section as well as plan-view specimens of films of four different thicknesses (9, 50, 100 and 220 nm) were studied in detail. The thinnest films were found to be rhombohedral when present as coherent epitaxial films in cross-section specimens, the misfit being accommodated by periodic microtwinning. When released from their substrate, as in plan-view specimens, films of the same thickness are domain-fragmented orthorhombic. It is suggested that the misfit stresses tend to favour a microtwinned rhombohedral structure, whereas unstressed films of the same thickness, released from the substrate, tend to become domain-fragmented orthorhombic. The observations illustrate in a striking manner the effect of misfit stresses on the microstructure of thin epitaxial films, explaining also the dependence of the physical properties on the film thickness and on the misfit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".