The Role of Passivation Layer during Thermal Annealing for Oxide Semiconductor Thin Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxide TFTs have been considered as a good candidate for the application to backplane device for high quality TFT-LCD and large area OLED panel. It is well known that the passivation play the very important role for the development of the high quality oxide TFTs. The criteria for good passivation layer can be a barrier for environmental factors, not having doping source during thermal annealing, and playing a role of curing the defective interface. The evolution of the resistance of active films during thermal annealing was monitored under the split of passivation layers and active layers. ALD deposited Al2O3 layer and PECVD SiO2 layer were applied for the passivation layer and sputter deposited Al-doped InZnSnO and InGaZnO were applied for the active layer. It is found that Al2O3 passivation layer supplies dopants to the active interface (possibly H) during high temperature annealing and the side wall of AIZTO pattern contains many defects, which become dopants during high temperature annealing through detailed measurement of resistance of patterned oxide thin films with various sizes. It is suggested that PECVD SiO2 with proper pre-treatment (possibly N2O plasma treatment) will be best candidate for the passivation layer in the oxide TFTs, especially in the case of oxide TFTs with high mobility.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".