MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161902039 · doi:10.1186/1556-276x-7-404

Flower-like Na2O nanotip synthesis via femtosecond laser ablation of glass

2012· article· en· W2161902039 on OpenAlexafffund
Champika Samarasekera, Bo Tan, Krishnan Venkatakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale Research Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceNanochemistryFemtosecondSubstrate (aquarium)Dwell timeLaserFabricationNanotechnologyCatalysisLaser ablationChemical engineeringOpticsOrganic chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current state-of-the-art in nanotip synthesis relies on techniques that utilize elaborate precursor chemicals, catalysts, or vacuum conditions, and any combination thereof. To realize their ultimate potential, synthesized nanotips require simpler fabrication techniques that allow for control over their final nano-morphology. We present a unique, dry, catalyst-free, and ambient condition method for creating densely clustered, flower-like, sodium oxide (Na2O) nanotips with controllable tip widths. Femtosecond laser ablation of a soda-lime glass substrate at a megahertz repetition rate, with nitrogen flow, was employed to generate nanotips with base and head widths as small as 100 and 20 nm respectively, and lengths as long as 10 μm. Control of the nanotip widths was demonstrated via laser dwell time with longer dwell times producing denser clusters of thinner nanotips. Energy dispersive X-ray analysis reveals that nanotip composition is Na2O. A new formation mechanism is proposed, involving an electrostatic effect between ionized nitrogen and polar Na2O. The synthesized nanotips may potentially be used in antibacterial and hydrogen storage 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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanoscale Research LettersSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207