MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152265295 · doi:10.1021/nl104163m

Hyperspectral Nanoscale Imaging on Dielectric Substrates with Coaxial Optical Antenna Scan Probes.

2011· article· en· W2152265295 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Weber‐Bargioni, Adam Schwartzberg, Matteo Cornaglia, Ariel Ismach, Jeffrey J. Urban, Yuanjie Pang, Reuven Gordon, Jeffrey Bokor, Miquel Salmerón, D. Frank Ogletree, Paul D. Ashby, Stefano Cabrini, P. James Schuck

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersBasic Energy SciencesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoaxialRaman spectroscopyOpticsHyperspectral imagingMicroscopyDielectricAntenna (radio)Carbon nanotubeOptoelectronicsMicroscopeNanoscopic scaleNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have demonstrated hyperspectral tip-enhanced Raman imaging on dielectric substrates using linearly polarized light and nanofabricated coaxial antenna tips. A full Raman spectrum was acquired at each pixel of a 256 by 256 pixel contact-mode atomic force microscope image of carbon nanotubes grown on a fused silica microscope coverslip, allowing D and G mode intensity and D-mode peak shifts to be measured with ∼20 nm spatial resolution. Tip enhancement was sufficient to acquire useful Raman spectra in 50-100 ms. Coaxial scan probes combine the efficiency and enhanced, ultralocalized optical fields of plasmonically coupled antennae with the superior topographical imaging properties of sharp metal tips. The yield of the coaxial tip fabrication process is close to 100%, and the tips are sufficiently durable to support hours of contact-mode force microscope imaging. Our coaxial probes avoid the limitations associated with the "gap-mode" imaging geometry used in most tip-enhanced Raman studies to date, where a sharp metal tip is held ∼1 nm above a metallic substrate with the sample located in the gap.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.200
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

Citations114
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon ResearchFrench-language works237,207