MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391812537 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c09980

Ultrahigh-Quality Ge-on-Glass with a 3.7% Uniaxial Tensile Strain

2024· article· en· W4391812537 on OpenAlexafffund
Liming Wang, Guangrui Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsMaterials scienceWaferUltimate tensile strengthOptoelectronicsEpitaxyGermaniumPolishingStrain engineeringWafer bondingSemiconductorUniaxial tensionComposite materialSilicon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide While there have been notable advancements in the quality of epitaxial Ge on Si, the crystal quality of bulk Ge remains much superior, which provides an effective method to study the performance potentials of Ge-based semiconductor devices. This study showcases the development of ultrahigh-quality Ge/poly-Si/SiO 2 on glass with a Ge thickness reduced to ≤100 nm (10 μm width) through wafer bonding, thinning, and polishing processes. The minority lifetimes measured for the Ge thin films range between 200 and 1000 ns, surpassing those achieved with epi-Ge on Si by at least 20 to 100 times. The wafer bonding process introduces a desirable tensile strain of 0.1%, attributed to thermal expansion mismatch. A Ge microbridge structure was employed to amplify the tensile strain, reaching a maximum uniaxial tensile strain of 3.7%. The much longer minority carrier lifetime together with the strain-induced band gap engineering holds promise for improving light emission efficiency. This work establishes an economical and convenient method for producing high-quality tensile-strained Ge thin films, a pivotal step in exploring the potential of Ge in light emission applications.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS OmegaSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207