MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110594521 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78365-4

Facile synthesis and thermoluminescence properties of nano bio-ceramic β-Ca2P2O7:Dy phosphor irradiated with 75 meV C6+ ion beam

2020· article· en· W3110594521 on OpenAlexaff
Karan Kumar Gupta, A. Krupski

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermoluminescencePhosphorMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IrradiationTransmission electron microscopyDopantScanning electron microscopeIonIon beamPhotoluminescenceYttriumDopingLuminescenceNuclear chemistryChemistryNanotechnologyOptoelectronicsOxidePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dy 3+ doped β-Ca 2 P 2 O 7 phosphor has been synthesized using wet chemical method. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis confirmed the formation of β-Ca 2 P 2 O 7 :Dy nano-phosphors. However, photoluminescence (PL) study was carried out to confirm the presence of dopant ion in the host matrix of β-Ca 2 P 2 O 7 :Dy material. Thermoluminescence (TL) glow curves of β-Ca 2 P 2 O 7 were recorded for different concentrations of Dy 3+ after exposure to various fluences of C 6+ ion beam (75 meV). TL sensitivity of β-Ca 2 P 2 O 7 :Dy 3+ (0.1 mol%) phosphor was 3.79 times more than commercially available CaSO 4 :Dy 3+ . TRIM code based on the Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate the absorbed doses, ion range and main energy loss. Glow curve de-convolution (GCD) method was used to determine the number of TL peaks and their trapping parameters. The wide linear response of β-Ca 2 P 2 O 7 nanoparticles along with high stability of TL glow curve makes this nanomaterial a good candidate for C 6+ ion beam dosimetry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207