A comparative study of optical property on unintentionally doped and Sn-Doped β-Ga2O3 crystals by EFG method with a cylindrical Ir die
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• A comparative study of optical property on unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals. • The strong anisotropy in Raman peak and intensity of β -Ga 2 O 3 between three different planes and in-plane. • The strong anisotropy in optical transmittance, bandgap values, surface barrier height, luminescence centers and level of electron ionization. In this work, we carried out a comparative study of optical property on unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals by edge-defined film-fed growth (EFG) method with a cylindrical iridium (Ir) die. The non-polarized Raman spectra showed the anisotropy in Raman peak position and intensity for three different planes (i.e., (100), (010) and (001)) of β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals, independent of the Sn dopant. A difference in the Raman spectra between the unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals was observed in the (001) plane. The strong in-plane anisotropy of the monoclinic β -Ga 2 O 3 crystal related to the crystallographic orientation was demonstrated by the angle-resolved polarized Raman spectroscopy. The Sn dopant cannot change the optical transmittance and bandgap values of the unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals with the (100), (010) and (001) orientations. However, the Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystal with the (010) orientation showed the higher valence band maximum and lower surface barrier height values. The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of the unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals with the (010) orientation was also measured, which showed no obvious difference. The different luminescence centers and level of electron ionization of the unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals were observed by the cathodoluminescence spectroscopy and electron paramagnetic resonance, respectively. Based on the comprehensive comparison, it can be concluded that the anisotropy in optical property of the unintentionally doped and Sn-doped β -Ga 2 O 3 crystals with (100), (010) and (001) orientations apparently exist.
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) | 0.001 | 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".