MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589288399 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b00262

X-ray Excitation Triggers Ytterbium Anomalous Emission in CaF<sub>2</sub>:Yb but Not in SrF<sub>2</sub>:Yb

2017· article· en· W2589288399 on OpenAlexaff
Rosa B. Hughes-Currie, Konstantin V. Ivanovskikh, Jon‐Paul R. Wells, Michael F. Reid, R. A. Gordon, Luis Seijo, Zoila Barandiarán

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicInorganic Fluorides and Related Compounds
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadRoyal Society Te ApārangiMarsden FundUniversity of Canterbury
KeywordsYtterbiumExcitationMaterials scienceX-rayAtomic physicsPhysicsOpticsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materials that luminesce after excitation with ionizing radiation are extensively applied in physics, medicine, security, and industry. Lanthanide dopants are known to trigger crystal scintillation through their fast d–f emissions; the same is true for other important applications as lasers or phosphors for lighting. However, this ability can be seriously compromised by unwanted anomalous emissions often found with the most common lanthanide activators. We report high-resolution X-ray-excited optical (IR to UV) luminescence spectra of CaF 2:Yb and SrF 2:Yb samples excited at 8949 eV and 80 K. Ionizing radiation excites the known anomalous emission of ytterbium in the CaF 2 host but not in the SrF 2 host. Wave function-based ab initio calculations of host-to-dopant electron transfer and Yb 2+ /Yb 3+ intervalence charge transfer explain the difference. The model also explains the lack of anomalous emission in Yb-doped SrF 2 excited by VUV radiation.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicInorganic Fluorides and Related CompoundsFrench-language works237,207