Iodination of Gas-Phase-Generated Ag Nanoparticles: Behavior of the Two Spin Orbit Components of the AgI Exciton in Ag@AgI Core−Shell Nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ag nanoparticles, with diameters estimated to be 17 ± 6 nm, were observed to react readily with I 2 to produce Ag@AgI core−shell nanoparticles. Both spin−orbit components of the exciton associated with the AgI shell were observed in the UV−vis spectra. The band gap of the AgI shell was found to shift to lower energy as the reaction with I 2 proceeded and the shell thickness increased. Shell thickness can be varied by controlling the duration of the exposure of the Ag nanoparticles to iodine. The band gap observed for the Ag@AgI nanoparticles was comparable to that expected of a solid AgI nanoparticle with a diameter of 5−6 nm, as estimated using the Brus formula. The difference between this effective diameter and the actual diameter of the particle (17 ± 6 nm) may be attributable to confinement effects associated with the finite thickness of the AgI shell and/or effects of the Ag core on the AgI shell. The shorter wavelength exciton appeared to be much more sensitive to surface effects, which are pronounced in nanoparticles, and appeared anywhere from 312 to 355 nm. The longer wavelength exciton behaved differently and does not appear to be affected much by such surface effects and therefore seems to be a much more localized electron−hole pair.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".