MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327235428 · doi:10.1166/jnn.2010.2079

Optical Response of CdSe Quantum Dots to Cesium-137 Gamma-Ray Radiation

2010· article· en· W2327235428 on OpenAlexaff
Kui Yu, Yi Cui, Chunsheng Li, Md. Badruz Zaman, Ruth C. Wilkins, Xiaohua Wu, Jianying Ouyang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceIrradiationRadiationAbsorption (acoustics)DosimeterQuantum dotPhotoluminescenceOptoelectronicsGamma rayOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optical response of colloidal photoluminescent (PL) semiconductor nanocrystals to 137Cs gamma radiation was investigated. The quantum dots (QDs) used were CdSe dispersed in hexane, exhibiting bandgap absorption and emission peaking at 556 nm and 563 nm, respectively. The doses of the 137Cs gamma radiations were 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 100 Gy with a dose rate of 0.805 Gy/min. Each radiation was performed on two identical samples; right after the radiation, absorption and emission measurements were performed. The change of the optical properties after the radiation was presented together with those of a control sample without radiation exposure. The prompt absorption measurements showed that there is little change with the 0.1 Gy up to 100 Gy radiations, while the prompt emission measurements showed that with the 0.1 Gy and 1 Gy radiation, there is a negligible change in the PL intensity; with the 10 Gy and 100 Gy radiation, there is a noticeable decrease in the PL intensity. Therefore, it seems that the radiation does not destroy the QDs themselves but leads to some loss of their surface passivation. Furthermore, the optical properties of the eight irradiated samples and the control sample were monitored periodically up to days. Interestingly, after the storage of days in dark, there is significant recovery in the PL intensity of the large-dose irradiated samples; such a rebound tendency provides the potential for the colloidal QDs to be novel and promising candidates in radiation dosimeter with multi-detection capability.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nanoscience and NanotechnologySame topicQuantum Dots Synthesis And PropertiesFrench-language works237,207