MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095077068 · doi:10.1021/cm0502065

Synthesis of Lanthanide Fluoride Nanoparticles of Varying Shape and Size

2005· article· en· W2095077068 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean-Luc Lemyre, Anna M. Ritcey

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsDispersityMicroemulsionMaterials scienceFluorideCyclohexaneCrystallinityNanoparticleYttriumParticle sizeMicelleChemical engineeringMesophaseAmorphous solidPrecipitationLanthanideEtherCrystallographyNanotechnologyInorganic chemistryPhysical chemistryPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryChemistryLiquid crystalPulmonary surfactantComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yttrium fluoride nanoparticles of varying crystallinity, shape, and size are prepared by precipitation in reverse microemulsions of water in cyclohexane stabilized with polyoxyethylene isooctylphenyl ether. YF 3 particles obtained by the classical microemulsion method are found to be monodisperse amorphous spheres, with controllable diameters between 6 and 50 nm. Particles of the same material obtained by a relatively minor variation of this method are found to be monocrystalline. Typically, mixtures of monodisperse regular hexagonal and triangular single crystals are observed. The size of the crystalline particles can be varied between about 25 and 350 nm. The formation of single crystals can be attributed to the slower incorporation of the precipitant into the micelles when introduced in this fashion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations158
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207