Dipole−Dipole Electronic Energy Transfer: Fluorescence Decay Functions for Arbitrary Distributions of Donors and Acceptors in Systems with Cylindrical Symmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We extended our earlier models for direct resonance energy transfer (DET) on systems of planar and spherical symmetry to cylindrical domains. The model we now develop applies to systems with restricted geometries and arbitrary distribution functions of donors and acceptors with cylindrical symmetry. The method enables one to evaluate the donor decay function from the donor and acceptor concentration profiles without requiring prior calculation of the donor−acceptor pair distribution, even when the donor translational invariance requirements of the Klafter−Blumen methodology are not satisfied. The formalism was applied to simple systems in which the donors may or may not occupy equivalent positions. For the first case, our results are compared to and are shown to agree with previously known models. For the second case, we have obtained new expressions for the donor decay function. Finally, we discuss whether certain specific geometries could be distinguished from one another by single-photon-timing fluorescence measurements on dye-labeled samples.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".