The effect of the surface of SnO2 nanoribbons on their luminescence using x-ray absorption and luminescence spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
X-ray excited optical luminescence (XEOL) and x-ray absorption near-edge structure in total electron, x-ray fluorescence, and photoluminescence yields at Sn M5,4-, O K-, and Sn K-edges have been used to study the luminescence from SnO2 nanoribbons. The effect of the surface on the luminescence from SnO2 nanoribbons was studied by preferential excitation of the ions in the near-surface region and at the normal lattice positions, respectively. No noticeable change of luminescence from SnO2 nanoribbons was observed if the Sn ions in the near-surface region were excited selectively, while the luminescence intensity changes markedly when Sn or O ions at the normal lattice positions were excited across the corresponding edges. Based on the experimental results, we show that the luminescence from SnO2 nanoribbons is dominated by energy transfer from the excitation of the whole SnO2 lattice to the surface states. Surface site specificity is not observable due to its low concentration and weak absorption coefficient although the surface plays an important role in the emission as a luminescence center. The energy transfer and site specificity of the XEOL or the lack of the site specificity from a single-phase sample is discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".