Counting the Photons: Determining the Absolute Storage Capacity of Persistent Phosphors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a persistent phosphor is often determined by comparing luminance decay curves, expressed in cd/m 2 . However, these photometric units do not enable a straightforward, objective comparison between different phosphors in terms of the total number of emitted photons, as these units are dependent on the emission spectrum of the phosphor. This may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the storage capacity of the phosphor. An alternative and convenient technique of characterizing the performance of a phosphor was developed on the basis of the absolute storage capacity of phosphors. In this technique, the phosphor is incorporated in a transparent polymer and the measured afterglow is converted into an absolute number of emitted photons, effectively quantifying the amount of energy that can be stored in the material. This method was applied to the benchmark phosphor SrAl 2 O 4 :Eu,Dy and to the nano-sized phosphor CaS:Eu. The results indicated that only a fraction of the Eu ions (around 1.6% in the case of SrAl 2 O 4 :Eu,Dy) participated in the energy storage process, which is in line with earlier reports based on X-ray absorption spectroscopy. These findings imply that there is still a significant margin for improving the storage capacity of persistent phosphors.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it