MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080407968 · doi:10.1002/lpor.201000004

Resonance energy transfer: Beyond the limits

2010· article· en· W2080407968 on OpenAlexafffund
D. L. Andrews, Carles Curutchet, Gregory D. Scholes

Bibliographic record

VenueLaser & Photonics Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneralitat de Catalunya
KeywordsPhoton upconversionPoolingEnergy transferPhotonicsSinglet stateEnergy harvestingResonance (particle physics)NanotechnologyQuantumPhysicsExcitationMaterials scienceEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceOptoelectronicsChemical physicsExcited stateAtomic physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In pursuit of a better understanding of how electronic excitation migrates within complex structures, the concept of resonance energy transfer is being extended and deployed in a wide range of applications. Utilizing knowledge of the quantum interactions that operate in natural photosynthetic systems, wide‐ranging molecular and solid‐state materials are explored in the cause of more efficient solar energy harvesting, while advances in theory are paving the way for the development and application of fundamentally new mechanisms. In this review, an introduction to the underlying processes that cause singlet‐singlet and triplet‐triplet energy transfer leads into a discussion of how a new conception of these fundamental processes has emerged over recent years. Illustrative examples relevant to laser science and photonics are described, including photosynthetic light‐harvesting, light‐activated sensors, processes of cooperative and accretive energy pooling and quantum cutting in rare earth‐doped crystals, and incoherent triplet‐triplet energy upconversion in molecular solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations116
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaser & Photonics ReviewSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207