Nanoscale Clarification of the Electronic Structure and Optical Properties of TiO<sub>2</sub> Nanowire with an Impurity Phase upon Sodium Intercalation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electronic structure and optical property of heterostructural TiO 2 nanowire (NW) synthesized by a hydrothermal process have been extensively studied. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) were used to probe the crystal structure and the local structure and bonding (unoccupied electronic states) of the as-obtained TiO 2 NW, respectively. Discrepancy between XRD and XANES results without spatial resolution was observed and interpreted on the basis of the inhomogeneous distribution of a sodium titanate impurity phase among the “bulk” pristine TiO 2 phase. Scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM), on the other hand, provides nanoscale clarification for the divergence with a spatial resolution of 30 nm. Using STXM, the nature of the sodium titanate impurity phase and pristine TiO 2 phase was thoroughly characterized by comparing the XANES at the Na K-edge, Ti L 3,2 -edge, and O K-edge. The local effect of sodium intercalation into the TiO 2 matrix together with the presence of sodium titanate impurity to the electronic structure of the entire NW specimen was addressed. Analysis was also conducted using 2D XANES-XEOL (X-ray excited optical luminescence) spectroscopy. The optical interplay with structural properties reveals the element and site specificity of the observed luminescence. Of these, the dominant green emission and minor near-infrared (NIR) luminescence were attributed to the defect states from both Ti and O sites within the minor sodium titanate phase and the dominant rutile TiO 2 phase, respectively. The relationship between the observed luminescence intensity ratio and the phase content ratio of rutile and sodium titanate is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".