MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809395213 · doi:10.3390/photonics5030015

Improved Magneto-Optic Surface Plasmon Resonance Biosensors

2018· article· en· W2809395213 on OpenAlexafffund
Conrad Rizal, Simone Pisana, Ivan Hrvoic

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotonics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMitacsYork UniversityCMC Microsystems
KeywordsMaterials scienceSurface plasmon resonanceBiosensorOptoelectronicsPlasmonWavelengthSurface plasmonBilayerPhotonicsOpticsNanotechnologyNanoparticleChemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magneto-optic (MO) characteristics and sensing performance of noble metal (Ag, Au, Cu) or transition metal (Fe, Ni, Co) single layers and Ag/Co or Au/Co bilayers have been studied and compared in both the standard plasmonic and MO plasmonic configurations at two different wavelengths (632.8 nm and 785 nm) and in two different sensing media (air and water). The sensing performance is found to be medium-specific and lower in biosensor-relevant water-based media. The sensitivities of MO-SPR sensors is found to be superior to SPR sensors in all cases. This enhancement in sensitivity means the detection limit of this class of transducers can be substantially improved by tuning Au/Co layer thickness, wavelength, and incident angle of optical radiation. The optimized bilayer showed an enhancement in sensitivity by over 30× in air and 9× in water as compared to the conventional Au SPR configuration. Notably, the best performance is 3× above that of MO-SPR sensors coupled to a photonic crystal previously reported in the literature and is found when the ferromagnetic layer is furthest from the sensing medium, as opposed to typical MO-SPR configurations. This proposed structure is attractive for next-generation biosensors.

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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotonicsSame topicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon ResearchFrench-language works237,207