Gold-Poly(methyl methacrylate) Nanocomposite Films for Plasmonic Biosensing Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gold-poly(methyl methacrylate) nanocomposites are prepared by an in situ method, by irradiating spin-coated films containing the polymer and the gold precursor dissolved in acetone. The reduction of gold ions results in the formation of Au that nucleates and grows within the polymer film. It is shown that, depending on the energy source, gold nanoparticles with different shapes can be formed. Nanocomposites prepared through UV-, thermal-, and MW-irradiation, respectively, show a low sensitivity toward the environment. However, by annealing the samples at temperatures well above the glass transition temperature of the polymer, the response to dielectric environment appears to be enhanced significantly. The sensitivity of samples synthesized through the three different methods is found to be comparable, around 100 nm/RIU. The increased sensitivity of the annealed sample is accounted for by the increased mobility of both polymer chains and gold nanoparticles in the rubbery state of the material and the presence of the monomer. Gold nanoparticles “freed” from the strong interaction with the polymer are now able to feel the molecules from the surrounding environment. The results show that, by using adequate post-synthesis heat treatments, gold-polymer nanocomposites can be used as plasmonic sensing platforms.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it