MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979257967 · doi:10.29173/aar72

Formation of Metal Oxides Based Surface Nanolenses and Their Optical Properties

2019· article· en· W2979257967 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laraib Syeda, Carmen Van Horn, Jiasheng Qian, Xuehua Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Academic Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOleic acidMaterials scienceChemical engineeringSolventTernary operationSurface energyMetalChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An emerging resource in the production of renewable energy are nanolenses, due to their unique optical properties. Their ability to refract light makes it possible for them to focus light and convert it into other forms of energy; which reduces the need for burning fossil fuels.
 
 nanolens, nanodroplets, optical properties, fluid cell, surface nanolens
 The formation of nanolenses occurs due to the process of solvent exchange. In this process, different concentrations of a ternary mixture comprising of oleic acid, water, and ethanol are used to create an ideal formation of nanodroplets. A mixture of iron (IV) chloride and manganese chloride is then washed over the droplets to create the droplet’s shell. The droplets are then annealed at 300°C in order to remove all excess liquid, leaving behind the hollow nanolenses. This process was carried out on two different substrates, silicon wafer and glass with similar results transpiring on both.
 After various trials, it can be concluded that the ideal concentration ratio of oleic acid/water/ethanol is 4.25/30/70, as the lenses are homogeneous in size, volume, and distribution. Allowing them to remain intact through the annealing process. These findings can be applied to further studies in the use of nanolenses concerning light refraction, and the consequential production of renewable energy.

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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Academic ReviewSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207