Time and frequency response characteristics of bacteriorhodopsin-based photodetectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The time and frequency response behavior of a new class of photodetectors based on a light-sensitive protein, known as bacteriorhodopsin (bR), is described. Each bR-based detector consists of an indium tin oxide (ITO) electrode/bR thin film/indium tin oxide (ITO) electrode structure. The response of the photodetector to square-wave and transient pulse illumination are both simulated using an equivalent resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit and experimentally observed. The investigative study demonstrates that the physical dimensions of the sensor surface, load resistance and capacitance, and the illumination conditions all have an impact on the transient response and gain-bandwidth characteristics. It is observed that changing the sensing area of the detector only affects the amplitude of the response, but not the bandwidth. Increasing the load resistance produces a higher gain, but reduces bandwidth. Increasing the load capacitance has the effect of dramatically reducing both gain and bandwidth. The observations and conclusions derived from this research provide design guidelines for developing hybrid photoelectric sensors and imaging arrays using bacteriorhodopsin thin films.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".