EXAFS sheds light on short-range ordering in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">G</mml:mi> <mml:msub> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi> <mml:msub> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi> <mml:mi>x</mml:mi> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> heteroepitaxial layers grown by MBE and CVD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The local arrangement of atoms in an alloy impacts its electronic band structure and, consequently, its fundamental physical properties. This work investigates the short-range order of tin atoms in binary <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <a:mrow> <a:mi mathvariant="normal">G</a:mi> <a:msub> <a:mi mathvariant="normal">e</a:mi> <a:mrow> <a:mn>1</a:mn> <a:mo>−</a:mo> <a:mi>x</a:mi> </a:mrow> </a:msub> <a:mi mathvariant="normal">S</a:mi> <a:msub> <a:mi mathvariant="normal">n</a:mi> <a:mi>x</a:mi> </a:msub> </a:mrow> </a:math> semiconductors epitaxially grown on Ge-buffered Si (001) substrates. Samples featuring Sn content up to 13 at.% were analyzed by x-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy at the Sn-K edge. The study reveals how the growth method and its process parameters, like temperature, or the epitaxial built-up strain affect the local atomic ordering of tin within the alloys. While the deposition technique seems to have a marginal effect on the Sn short-range ordering, the growth temperature and Sn content systematically influence the bonding angles Sn. Ge-Sn next neighbor coordination shells, whereas the interatomic distances remain largely unaffected. In the first coordination shell Sn-Ge are strongly favored over Sn-Sn, while the opposite happens in the next coordination shell, where Sn-Sn are systematically favored. These insights into the relationship of growth condition and layer properties enable to identify the nature of the large variety of electronic and optical properties measured in <f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <f:mrow> <f:mi mathvariant="normal">G</f:mi> <f:msub> <f:mi mathvariant="normal">e</f:mi> <f:mrow> <f:mn>1</f:mn> <f:mo>−</f:mo> <f:mi>x</f:mi> </f:mrow> </f:msub> <f:mi mathvariant="normal">S</f:mi> <f:msub> <f:mi mathvariant="normal">n</f:mi> <f:mi>x</f:mi> </f:msub> </f:mrow> </f:math> layers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.552 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".