MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965219870 · doi:10.1063/1.4868517

Non-destructive quantification of alignment of nanorods embedded in uniaxially stretched polymer films

2014· article· en· W1965219870 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Stoenescu, Vo‐Van Truong, Muthukumaran Packirisamy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanorodMaterials scienceRodAbsorbanceDichroic glassSuperposition principleOpticsNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among several methods developed for uniaxial alignment of metallic nanorods for optical applications, alignment by film stretching consists in embedding the rods in a transparent thin film of thermoplastic polymer, followed by simultaneous heating and uniaxial stretching of the composite film. As to the quantification of the resulting alignment, it has been limited to statistical calculations based on microscopic examination, which is incomplete, subject to errors due to geometric distortions of the scanning electron microscope images and destructive, since it involves cutting of samples. In contrast, we present in this paper a non-destructive quantification of the average orientation of the rods, based on a probabilistic approach combined with numerical simulations of absorbance spectra and spectrometric characterization of the composite film. Assuming electromagnetically non-interacting rods, we consider the longitudinal absorbance peak of their ensemble to consist of the superposition of their individual spectra that we obtain by numerical simulation using the size and shape adapted dielectric function of the metal and the finite difference time domain method. The accuracy of the solution depends on the number of discretization intervals, the accuracy of the numerical simulations, and the accurate knowledge of the polydispersity of the rods. For the sake of concreteness, we used nanorods to describe the quantification steps but the method is equally valid for any dichroic particles.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207