MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098089257 · doi:10.1021/jp0026235

Photodynamics of Latex Nanospheres Examined Using Two-Photon Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy

2001· article· en· W2098089257 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca L. Goyan, Rüdiger J. Paul, David T. Cramb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry B · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluorescence correlation spectroscopyFluorophoreFluorescenceIntersystem crossingTwo-photon excitation microscopyFluorescence cross-correlation spectroscopySpectroscopyMaterials scienceFluorescence spectroscopyAbsorption (acoustics)Excited stateChemistryPhotochemistryOpticsMolecular physicsAtomic physicsSinglet statePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) is a highly sensitive and selective technique with which one can analyze highly localized environments using the fluctuations in the average fluorescence of a probe fluorophore. Two-photon FCS has been proposed as a method to minimize photodamage to the probes and living organisms under observation. While multiphoton excitation reduces photodamage outside the focal volume, photodynamic effects within the volume can be substantial. The dynamics occurring in the focal excitation volume of a two-photon confocal microscope are examined using FCS of dye-loaded, 100 nm diameter polystyrene spheres. Multiphoton photodynamic events are observed which cannot be explained either by simple local solution heating or by intersystem crossing within a single excited dye molecule. The laser power dependence of photodynamics process suggests that a four-photon absorption by polystyrene and subsequent ablation of the sphere is the mechanism of fluorescence-reducing photodamage.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry BSame topicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207