MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246234923 · doi:10.1080/01418610108214359

The first stage of stress relaxation in tensile strained In1-xGaxAs1-yPy films

2001· article· en· W4246234923 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao Yu Wu, G. C. Weatherly

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Magazine A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystal twinningMaterials scienceNucleationSubstrate (aquarium)Ternary operationUltimate tensile strengthRelaxation (psychology)Composite materialStress (linguistics)Surface roughnessStress relaxationCrackingCrystallographyCondensed matter physicsThermodynamicsMicrostructureChemistryCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first stages of stress relaxation have been studied in a series of 2% tensile strained (In, Ga)(As, P) films of various compositions by transmission electron microscopy. Ternary In1-x Ga x As and In1-x Ga x P films relaxed by a combination of twinning and cracking, while the quaternary In1-x Ga x As1-y P y film relaxed only by twinning. The differences between the behaviours of the ternary and quaternary systems were correlated with the surface topography of the films. The surface nucleation of 90° partial dislocations was shown to be feasible at the growth temperature of the films (480°C) in the presence of surface roughness but, in the absence of a critical roughness, cracking was the preferred mechanism for coherency loss. The critical film thicknesses observed for stress relaxation by either twinning or cracking were shown to be in good agreement with the calculated values. The twins themselves often terminated inside the substrate (InP) rather than at the substrate-film interface. This behaviour was related to the elastic mismatch that exits between the harder film and softer substrate.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Magazine ASame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207