Interfacial Atomic Mechanisms of Single‐Crystalline MoS<sub>2</sub> Epitaxy on Sapphire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The epitaxial growth of molybdenum disulfide (MoS₂) on sapphire substrates enables the formation of single‐crystalline monolayer MoS₂ with exceptional material properties on a wafer scale. Despite this achievement, the underlying growth mechanisms remain a subject of debate. The epitaxial interface is critical for understanding these mechanisms, yet its exact atomic configuration has previously been unclear. In this study, a monolayer single‐crystalline MoS₂ grown on a sapphire substrate is analyzed, decisively visualizing the atomic structure of the epitaxial interface and elucidating its role in epitaxial growth from an atomic perspective. The findings reveal that the interface consists of a periodic molecular MoO 3 interlayer, van der Waals epitaxially grown on a single Al‐terminated sapphire surface. Additionally, it is discovered that MoO 3 coverage enhances surface interactions and introduces a unique atomic arrangement with 1‐fold symmetry at the sapphire surface, thereby facilitating the unidirectional alignment of MoS₂. This discovery provides valuable insights into the growth mechanisms leading to single‐crystalline MoS₂ formation, and suggests pathways for quantitatively monitoring and controlling growth dynamics, for the improvement of material quality and process repeatability, applicable for single‐crystalline MoS₂ or potentially other transition metal dichalcogenides epitaxially grown on sapphire.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".