Controlling the optical properties of hafnium dioxide thin films deposited with electron cyclotron resonance ion beam deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of reactive and sputtering oxygen partial pressure on the structure, stoichiometry and optical properties of hafnium oxide (HfO2) thin films have been systematically investigated. The electron cyclotron resonance ion beam deposition (ECR-IBD) technique was used to fabricate the films on to JGS-3 fused silica substrates. The amorphous structure of HfO2 films were determined by X-ray Diffraction. Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy and Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry were carried out for the composition and stoichiometry analysis, where this suggests the formation of over-stoichiometric films. The data suggests that the O:Hf ratio ranges from 2.4 – 4.45 to 1 for the ECR-IBD fabricated HfO2 films in this study. The transmission and reflectance spectra of the HfO2 films were measured over a wide range of wavelengths (λ = 185 – 3000 nm) by utilizing a spectrophotometer. The measured spectra were analyzed by an optical fitting software, which utilizes the model modified by O'Leary, Johnson and Lim, to extract the optical properties, refractive index (n) and the bandgap energy (E0). By varying the reactive and sputtering oxygen partial pressure, the optical properties were found to be n = 1.70 – 1.91, and E0 = 5.6 – 6.0 eV. This study provides a flexible method for tuning the optical properties of HfO2 coatings by controlling the mixture of reactive and sputtering gas.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".