Unexpected Selectivity of UV Light Activated Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Gas Sensors by Two Different Redox Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conflict between the two existing models was resolved, to provide a clear explanation for the unexpected “selectivity” found in UV light activated metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) gas sensors during the detection of reducing agents. A new model based on the dynamic equilibrium of adsorbed oxygen concentration was constructed by two types of responses: (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mrow><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>) when the MOS surface is adsorbed with oxygen, the conductance of the sensor increases upon injection of reducing agents (RA) ( α -type) and (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mrow><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>) when the MOS surface is not covered by oxygen, the conductance decreases upon injection of RA ( β -type). The proposed model was verified by the experiments of ZnO based MOS gas sensors, to reveal the origin of the unexpected “selectivity” found by the optimum intensity, where the current drop, due to the reaction between RA and MOS, which increases with UV power and levels with the reciprocal background current, which decreases with the UV power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".