MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122170661 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2012-0062

Optical and radiative properties of Nd<sup>3+</sup>-doped lead tellurite borate glasses

2013· article· en· W2122170661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. B. Shigihalli, R. Rajaramakrishna, R. V. Anavekar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiative transferAnalytical Chemistry (journal)BoronAmorphous solidBorate glassPhysicsAbsorption spectroscopyExcited stateDifferential scanning calorimetryAbsorption (acoustics)Branching fractionDopingGlass transitionAtomic physicsOpticsNuclear magnetic resonanceCrystallographyChemistryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glass samples of composition (in mol%) 20PbO-20TeO 2 -(60 – x)B 2 O 3 -xNd 2 O 3 (x = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) were prepared by melt quenching. The glassy nature of as-quenched samples was established via differential scanning calorimetry. The amorphous nature of the glasses was confirmed via powder X-ray diffraction measurements. Judd–Ofelt (JO) analysis based on UV–visible absorption spectra was performed to determine JO parameters Ω λ (λ = 2, 4, 6). The observed trend is Ω 2 &gt; Ω 6 &gt; Ω 4 . The large value of Ω 2 indicates the presence of covalent bonding between the Nd 3+ ions and the surrounding ligands. Radiative properties, such as radiative transition probabilities, branching ratios, and radiative lifetimes are estimated. The glass samples have relatively high branching ratio, and their emission (A em ) to excited state absorption (A ESA ) intensity ratio is higher than one for the 4 F 3/2 → 4 I 11/2 transition, indicating that the prepared glasses may have potential laser applications.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207