Polarized Raman Microscopy to Image Microstructure Changes in Silicon Phthalocyanine Thin‐Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of deposition technique and post deposition treatment can significantly influence the performance of organic electronic devices by altering the complex relationship between film properties and charge transport. Herein, the influence of deposition method and post deposition thermal annealing on the thin‐film properties of an emerging semiconductor, bis(tri‐n‐propylsilyl oxide) SiPc ((3PS)2‐SiPc), is examined by polarized Raman microscopy. Comparing physical vapor deposition (PVD) and spin‐coating, the orientation of (3PS)2‐SiPc molecules in films is determined and further characterized by X‐ray diffraction to assess variations in microstructure and morphology due to thermal annealing. Despite differences in film formation, non‐annealed organic thin‐film transistors (OTFTs) fabricated by PVD and spin‐coating resulted in similar electron mobilities (μe) on the order of 10−2 cm2 V−1 s−1 and threshold voltages (VT) of 10–20 V. Films fabricated by PVD annealed at 175 °C transition to a new polymorphic form with molecules aligned at a higher angle to the substrate and exhibiting reduced device performance. Conversely, spin‐coated films do not undergo any new polymorph formation or structural reorganization with thermal annealing. PVD fabricated films are thus more readily able to undergo transformations to structure and morphology with post deposition processing, while the microstructure of spin‐coated films is established at the time of deposition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".