MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044479468 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.82.125411

Graphene and few-layer graphite probed by second-harmonic generation: Theory and experiment

2010· article· en· W2044479468 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Dean, H. M. van Driel

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrapheneMaterials scienceSecond-harmonic generationIsotropyAnisotropyDipoleSubstrate (aquarium)GraphiteSurface second harmonic generationLayer (electronics)Condensed matter physicsMolecular physicsTensor (intrinsic definition)QuadrupoleGraphite oxideOpticsPhysicsNanotechnologyAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured second-harmonic generation (SHG) from graphene and other graphitic films, from two layers to bulk graphite, at room temperature; all samples are mounted on a 300 nm oxide layer of a Si(001) substrate. With 800 nm, 150 fs fundamental pulses, the anisotropic response was recorded for combinations of $p$-, $s$-, and diagonally polarized fundamental and second-harmonic beams as the samples were rotated about their normal. Graphene samples display SHG signatures only slightly different from that of the bare substrate which shows SHG with fourfold rotational symmetry. All other layered systems show threefold symmetry, although the ratio of isotropic to anisotropic response varies with the number of layers. A model based on linear light propagation in layered media with interface dipole and bulk quadrupole SHG sources is presented for the analysis. We show that data from all layered samples can be understood in terms of well-known linear optical properties, the SHG response of the bare substrate and four independent, complex nonlinear dipole susceptibility tensor elements of the graphene/air interface.

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)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations166
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207