MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964259901 · doi:10.1080/2374068x.2017.1413527

Generalisation of phonon confinement model for interpretation of Raman line-shape from nano-silicon

2017· article· en· W2964259901 on OpenAlexaff
Manushree Tanwar, Priyanka Yogi, Simran Lambora, Suryakant Mishra, Shailendra K. Saxena, Pankaj R. Sagdeo, А. С. Крылов, Rajesh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Materials and Processing Technologies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardMinistry of Education, IndiaUGC-DAE Consortium for Scientific Research, University Grants CommissionDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyPhononRaman scatteringMaterials scienceSiliconCoherent anti-Stokes Raman spectroscopyLine (geometry)SemiconductorOpticsCondensed matter physicsOptoelectronicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative analysis of two Raman line-shape functions has been carried out to validate the true representation of experimentally observed Raman scattering data for semiconducting nanomaterials. A modified form of already existing phonon confinement model (PCM) incorporates two basic considerations, phonon momentum conservation and shift in zone centre phonon frequency. After incorporation of the above mentioned two factors, a rather symmetric Raman line-shape is generated which is in contrary to the usual asymmetric Raman line-shapes obtained from nanostructured semiconductor. By fitting an experimentally observed Raman scattering data from silicon nanostructures, prepared by metal induced etching, it can be established that the Raman line-shape obtained within the framework of PCM is a true representative Raman line-shape of sufficiently low dimensions semiconductors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Materials and Processing TechnologiesSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207