Trapping Individual Upconverters Using Rectangle Nanoapertures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the optical trapping of single Er <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3+</sup> /Yb <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3+</sup> co-doped up-converting fluorescent nanoparticle with rectangle aperture on gold sample using a continuous wave 980 nm single-beam laser. The laser also excites visible luminescence from the nanoparticles. This feature enables us to analyze the number of individual nanoparticles loading into a trap stage. We record the number of trapped nanoparticles using a CCD camera which also can be confirmed by measuring the variation in the laser intensity transmitted through the rectangle aperture. The rectangle aperture enhances the local field that serve in enabling trapping and enhancing the emission of up-converting nanoparticles. In addition, we investigate the impact of rectangle dimensions on the ratio of emitted upconversion in the 544 nm to 655 nm range. Results show a change in ratio of upconversion peaks in the range of 544 nm to 655 nm while sweeping through different lengths of rectangular aperture. This study could help improve the understanding of lanthanide upconversion nanoparticle interaction with plasmonic gold nanoapertures at the nanoscale level.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".