The Impact of Different Alkali Metal Ions on Photoluminescence Properties of Ca<sub>10</sub>M(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>7</sub>:Eu<sup>2+</sup> (M: Li, Na, K)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of novel luminescent materials Ca 10 M(PO 4 ) 7 :Eu 2+ (M: Li, Na, K) were synthesized by the solid-state reaction. The previous literatures indicate that the doped different alkali metal ions can only lead to regular shift of the emission and excitation spectra. Howerver, in this paper, we found the result that these three kinds of phosphors showed huge differences between the emission spectra intensity as well as the positions of the excitation and emission spectra peaks. No any regulars can be found. In order to explore it, crystal structure, the performance of photoluminescence spectra and CIE coordinates have been systematically investigated and discussed. In Ca 10 Li (PO 4 ) 7 , Ca 10 Na (PO 4 ) 7 and Ca 10 K(PO 4 ) 7 host lattices, the positions of the cations are different, leading to three different crystal structures. Besides, the coordination conditions of the luminescent centers Eu 2+ ions are also changed by the incorporation of the alkali metal ions. Thus the enormous disparity on the luminescence intensity as well as the excitation and emission peak positions may be ascribed to these three quite different crystal fields and different coordination numbers of the luminescent central ion in the Ca 10 M(PO 4 ) 7 :Eu 2+ (M: Li, Na, K) 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".