MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149836174 · doi:10.1021/nn800684z

A Common Mechanism Underlies the Dark Fraction Formation and Fluorescence Blinking of Quantum Dots

2009· article· en· W2149836174 on OpenAlexafffund
Nela Durisic, Paul W. Wiseman, Peter Grütter, Colin D. Heyes

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Nano · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsQuantum dotFraction (chemistry)IonFluorescenceDark statePhysicsDiffusionChemical physicsChemistryNanotechnologyAtomic physicsMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CdSe quantum dots (QDs) are known to exhibit both power-law blinking dynamics and a dark fraction. A complete description of the mechanistic origins of these properties is still lacking. We show that a change in the pH of the QD environment systematically changes both the dark fraction and the blinking statistics. As pH is lowered, shorter "on" times and longer "off" times, as well as an increase in the permanent dark fraction, are observed. The increase in the dark fraction is preceded by a decrease in the emission intensity of a single QD. Interestingly, the form of the probability distribution function describing blinking changes when the QDs are taken from an air-exposed environment into an aqueous one. These results are used to propose a coupled role for H(+) ions by which they first reduce the intensity of the emitting state as well as affect the probabilities of the QD to switch between "on" and "off" states and eventually trap the QD in a permanent "off" state. We discuss and extend two theoretical blinking models to account for the effect of H(+) ions as well as to highlight their common principle of a diffusion-controlled mechanism governing blinking.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations56
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS NanoSame topicQuantum Dots Synthesis And PropertiesFrench-language works237,207