MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414325750 · doi:10.1002/smll.202507332

DFT‐Assisted Approach to Low‐Temperature Graphene Growth on Sapphire

2025· article· en· W4414325750 on OpenAlexafffund
Umut Kaya, Armin Sahinovic, Leon Lörcher, Carmen Nordhoff, Yasaman Jarrahi Zadeh, Tyler S. Lott, Germán Sciaini, A. Lorke, W. Mertin, Rossitza Pentcheva, G. Bacher

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsGrapheneNucleationAdsorptionSubstrate (aquarium)Density functional theoryCarbon fibersFacet (psychology)Dielectric

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Controlling the direct growth of 2D materials onto dielectric substrates is considered as a key requirement for integrating these ultrathin functional materials into existing technology platforms. Here, a combined experimental and theoretical approach is presented to unravel the mechanism of low‐temperature graphene growth on sapphire, a dielectric substrate widely used in the semiconductor industry. A clear dependence of the graphene growth rate on the crystal facet is found, with the highest growth rate for a ‐plane and ca ‐plane, and the lowest for r ‐plane sapphire. Density functional theory calculations reveal that the coordination environment of surface oxygen ions governs carbon adsorption energetics: lower coordinated oxygen sites on the a ‐plane markedly enhance carbon atom binding, driving nucleation and growth, while higher coordinated oxygen sites on the r‐ plane hinder adsorption and growth. Guided by these insights, it is demonstrated that tailoring substrate termination yields controllable graphene formation at temperatures as low as 670 °C and sheet resistances down to 1.65 kΩ □ −1 . This approach may establish a universal design principle to guide low‐temperature growth of 2D materials on non‐catalytic dielectrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207