MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315192221 · doi:10.1021/jp207682s

Optimizing Refractive Index Sensitivity of Supported Silver Nanocube Monolayers

2011· article· en· W2315192221 on OpenAlexaff
Nur Ahamad, Adam Bottomley, Anatoli Ianoul

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonolayerRefractive indexMaterials scienceDielectricSubstrate (aquarium)PlasmonAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OptoelectronicsChemistryNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The refractive index (RI) sensitivity of extinction spectra was compared experimentally for silver nanocubes in solution and in supported monolayers prepared by the Langmuir technique. The size of the nanocubes, RI of supporting dielectric substrate, and monolayer surface pressure were used as variables in refractive index sensing optimization. The dipolar plasmon modes of the colloidal nanocubes were found to have the highest RIS values of 176, 361, and 480 nm/RI units for 40, 80, and 130 nm cubes, respectively. The largest figure of merit (FOM) of 4.55 was measured for a quadrupolar mode of 130 nm nanocubes. When compared to suspensions, the refractive index sensitivities (RIS) of supported nanocubes were reduced by ∼50% and decreased with increasing monolayer surface pressure. The RIS of 40 nm cube monolayers appeared to be sensitive to the substrate RI due to the RI-dependent plasmon mode hybridization, resulting in dipolar and quadrupolar modes. The intensity of this quadrupolar peak was found to increase with the angle of incident light. This work shows that the use of high refractive index dielectric substrates, a passive molecular spacer, and large angles of incidence can improve the detection of plasmonic response by supported nanocube monolayers.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207