Erbium environments in erbium-silicon/silica light emitting nanostructures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Co-doping of SiO 2 with Si and Er to achieve silica fibre amplifiers has resulted in encouraging levels of light emission, much above those of Er-only doped SiO 2 . However, different fabrication methods, i.e., co-implantion and sequential implantation of Er and Si, has led to several factors difference in light levels. This paper looks into the reasons for these differences by establishing structure and local stoichiometry of the created entities via analytical transmission electron microscopy. In both cases Si-nanocrystals (NCs) have formed in the SiO 2 matrix. In the former case Er-ions are co-located with /integrated within the NCs, in the latter case NCs and Er are separate. By assessing the NCs' internal and interfacial structure with the surrounding material, we attempt to identify chemical/structural Er-phases/defects and their effect on the sensitising efficiency in the Er:Si-NCs system; high resolution phase contrast- and high angle dark field imaging as well as nano-scale spatially resolved electron energy core loss- and plasmon-spectroscopy carried out in an aberration corrected dedicated STEM lend valuable support to these studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".