MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963983106 · doi:10.1364/optica.1.000075

Absolute absorption cross-section measurement of a submonolayer film on a silica microresonator

2014· article· en· W1963983106 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack A. Barnes, G. Gagliardi, Hans‐Peter Loock

Bibliographic record

VenueOptica · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOvertoneAbsorption (acoustics)Materials scienceAbsorption cross sectionMolar absorptivitySpectroscopyAttenuation coefficientExtinction (optical mineralogy)Rayleigh scatteringAbsorption spectroscopyOpticsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Cross section (physics)Extended X-ray absorption fine structureMolecular physicsChemistrySpectral linePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional absorption spectroscopy is not nearly sensitive enough for quantitative overtone measurements on submonolayer coatings. While cavity-enhanced absorption detection methods using microresonators have the potential to provide quantitative absorption cross sections of even weakly absorbing submonolayer films, this potential has not yet been fully realized. To determine the absorption cross section of a submonolayer film of ethylene diamine (EDA) on a silica microsphere resonator, we use phase-shift cavity ringdown spectroscopy simultaneously on near-IR radiation that is Rayleigh backscattered from the microsphere and transmitted through the coupling fiber taper. We then independently determine both the coupling coefficient and the optical loss within the resonator. Together with a coincident measurement of the wavelength frequency shift, an absolute overtone absorption cross section of adsorbed EDA, at submonolayer coverage, was obtained and was compared to the bulk value. The smallest quantifiable absorption cross section is ?min=2.7×10-12 cm2. This absorption cross section is comparable to the extinction coefficients of, e.g., single gold nanoparticles or aerosol particles. We therefore propose that the present method is also a viable route to absolute extinction measurements of single particles. © 2014 Optical Society of America

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpticaSame topicPhotonic and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207