MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974563400 · doi:10.1021/acsenergylett.9b01617

Electronic Structure of the Plasmons in Metal Nanocrystals: Fundamental Limitations for the Energy Efficiency of Hot Electron Generation

2019· article· en· W2974563400 on OpenAlexaff
Le Chang, Lucas V. Besteiro, Jiachen Sun, Eva Yazmin Santiago, Stephen K. Gray, Zhiming Wang, Alexander O. Govorov

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Energy Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaOffice of ScienceVolkswagen Foundation
KeywordsPlasmonElectronMaterials scienceSurface plasmonFree electron modelNanocrystalPhysicsOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Review discusses the electronic structure of plasmonic resonances in metal nanostructures, clarifying existing misconceptions on the topic. Here we underscore the key property of the plasmonic response in metal nanocrystals: the plasmon and its wave function are mostly composed of a large number of low-energy excitations, which involve electrons near the Fermi level. Simultaneously, some number of high-energy hot electrons are excited in a nanocrystal due to the scattering of electrons by surfaces and in hot spots. It is an established fact that plasmon excitations are well described by classical frameworks, considering the collective oscillation of low-energy carriers moving as the result of classical acceleration. This classical motion is intrinsically dissipative and leads to heating. On the other hand, the generation of hot electrons in nanocrystals is a quantum surface effect. The energy efficiency of such hot-electron processes is always limited. However, there are interesting possibilities for the hot-electron enhancement, which we discuss here in the context of applications for plasmonic photodetectors, photocatalysis, and ultrafast spectroscopy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations140
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Energy LettersSame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207