MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042668983 · doi:10.1021/jp808836g

Optical Degradation of CdSe/ZnS Quantum Dots upon Gamma-Ray Irradiation

2009· article· en· W2042668983 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Z. Stodilka, Jeffrey J. L. Carson, Kui Yu, Md. Badruz Zaman, Chunsheng Li, Diana Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteSteacie Institute for Molecular SciencesHealth CanadaDefence Research and Development CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotIrradiationFluorescenceDosimeterSpectral lineMaterials scienceGamma rayRadiationOptoelectronicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)PhotochemistryChemistryPhysicsOpticsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report quantitative changes to the fluorescent characteristics of quantum dots (QDs) following gamma irradiation. One CdSe/ZnS QD ensemble synthesized via a wet-chemistry approach was dispersed in hexane. Six identical dispersions were prepared, three of which were unexposed controls, whereas the other three were irradiated by a Co-60 source, incrementally to doses of 0.1, 1.0, 10, and 100 Gy. Fluorescence spectra were immediately collected after each irradiation. Emission spectra were fit to a three-component mixed Gaussian model, which included CENTRE, SHOULDER, and BACKGROUND Gaussians. For all of the irradiated samples, the CENTRE and SHOULDER Gaussian amplitude decreased with increased irradiation dose. The BACKGROUND Gaussian exhibited increased amplitude, blue-shift, and widening. The three control samples exhibited consistent unchanged fluorescent spectra during our experimental time scale. The fluorescent response of QDs to radiation provides the proof of concept for use of quantum dots as novel dosimeters.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicQuantum Dots Synthesis And PropertiesFrench-language works237,207