MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991814550 · doi:10.1063/1.3552943

Studies of concentration dependences in the luminescence of Ti-doped Al2O3

2011· article· en· W1991814550 on OpenAlexaff
V.B. Mikhailik, P. C. F. Di Stefano, S. Henry, H. Kraus, A. Lynch, V. Tsybulskyi, M.-A. Verdier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLuminescenceDopingAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials sciencePhotoionizationEmission spectrumExcited statePhotoluminescenceQuenching (fluorescence)ExcitonTitaniumIonAtomic physicsSpectral lineChemistryFluorescenceOptoelectronicsIonizationOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The variation of luminescence and excitation spectra of titanium doped Al2O3 for the concentration of Ti ranging from 10 to 1000 ppm was investigated using synchrotron radiation. In the lightly doped Al2O3–Ti (<100 ppm) samples we identified several emission bands. These are the emission of the excitons localized at Ti (290 nm), the emission due to F+ centers (325 nm), the band around 420 nm traditionally attributed to F center emission, and the luminescence of Ti3+ ions at 720 nm. The emphasis in this study is on the clarification of the nature of the blue emission band in the samples with high concentration of Ti (≥100 ppm), where the luminescence and excitation spectra of the blue emission exhibit noticeable variability. This is explained by a model of the luminescence process of Ti4+–F centers that includes the photoionization of Ti3+, the subsequent capture of electrons at F+-centers, formation of excited F-centers and, finally, the emission of a blue photon. The quenching of the blue emission with increasing Ti concentration is interpreted in terms of competition between oxygen vacancies and Ti4+ centers in the capture of the electron.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207