{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07112526539278131, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02653927813163482, 'mean_word_length': 4.785276073619632, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Auger parameter studies of third‐row chemical elements

The Auger parameter (AP) studies available in the literature are usually based on Auger transitions involving only core‐level electrons. In this paper, besides the usual AP − α*Z = [BE(2p)] + [KE(KL23L23)], (Z = third‐row chemical elements)—we also considered the AP involving core–valence–valence Auger transitions − γ*Z = [BE(2p)] + [KE(L23VV)]. The chemical shifts for γ* between Al0 and Al2O3 and between Si0 and SiO2 are more than twice that for α*, whereas the difference in such chemical shifts progressively decreases with increasing Z. While the inelastic mean free path (λ) associated with α* spans the range ∼2.5–4.5 nm, γ* relates to a much more surface‐specific analysis, i.e. 0.5 < λ < 2.5 nm. We discuss the diagnostic potential of γ* and outline its advantages and shortcomings in the surface and interface analysis of materials. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.