MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003443040 · doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b05342

Engineering Directionality in Quantum Dot Shell Lasing Using Plasmonic Lattices

2020· article· en· W3003443040 on OpenAlexafffund
Jun Guan, Laxmi Kishore Sagar, Ran Li, Danqing Wang, Golam Bappi, Nicolas E. Watkins, Marc R. Bourgeois, Larissa Levina, Fengjia Fan, Sjoerd Hoogland, Oleksandr Voznyy, João M. Pina, Richard D. Schaller, George C. Schatz, Edward H. Sargent, Teri W. Odom

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsMaterials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNorthwestern UniversityU.S. Department of DefenseNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDirectionalityQuantum dotPlasmonLasing thresholdShell (structure)OptoelectronicsMaterials sciencePlasmonic nanoparticlesNanotechnologyPhysicsWavelength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report how the direction of quantum dot (QD) lasing can be engineered by exploiting high-symmetry points in plasmonic nanoparticle (NP) lattices. The nanolaser architecture consists of CdSe-CdS core-shell QD layers conformally coated on two-dimensional square arrays of Ag NPs. Using waveguide-surface lattice resonances (W-SLRs) near the Δ point in the Brillouin zone as optical feedback, we achieved lasing from the gain in CdS shells at off-normal emission angles. Changing the periodicity of the plasmonic lattices enables other high-symmetry points (Γ or M) of the lattice to overlap with the QD shell emission, which facilitates tuning of the lasing direction. We also increased the thickness of the QD layer to introduce higher-order W-SLR modes with additional avoided crossings in the band structure, which expands the selection of cavity modes for any desired lasing emission angle.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations78
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicPlasmonic and Surface Plasmon ResearchFrench-language works237,207