MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of electric field strength on the accuracy of boron dopant quantification in silicon using atom probe tomography

2024· article· en· W4401741377 on OpenAlexafffund
Bavley Guerguis, Ramya Cuduvally, R. J. H. Morris, Gabriel Arcuri, Brian Langelier, Nabil Bassim

Bibliographic record

VenueUltramicroscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Materials Characterization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationMcMaster University
KeywordsAtom probeBoronSiliconDopantElectric fieldMaterials scienceAtom (system on chip)TomographyField (mathematics)Molecular physicsAtomic physicsDopingChemistryOptoelectronicsPhysicsNanotechnologyOpticsNuclear physicsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) was used as an indirect measure of the average apex electric field during analysis. For a range of electric fields, the accuracy of the total implanted dose and the depth profile shape determined by APT was evaluated against the National Institute of Standards and Technology Standard Reference Material 2137. The radial (non-)uniformity of the detected B was also examined. At a higher surface electric field (i.e., a greater CSR(Si)), the determined B dose converges on the certified dose. Additionally, the depth profile shape tends towards that derived by secondary ion mass spectrometry. This improvement coincides with a more uniform radial B distribution, evidenced by desorption maps. In contrast, for lower surface electric fields (i.e., a lower CSR(Si)), the B dose is significantly underestimated, and the depth profile is artificially stretched. The desorption maps also indicate a highly inhomogeneous B emission localized around the center of the detector, which is believed to be an artifact of B surface migration on the tip of the sample. For the purposes of routine investigations of semiconductor devices using APT, these results illustrate the potential origin of quantification artifacts and their severity at different operating conditions, thus providing pathways towards best practices for accurate and repeatable measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltramicroscopySame topicAdvanced Materials Characterization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207