MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116684303 · doi:10.1088/2516-1075/abd61c

Structural origins of carbon quantum dot luminescence by synchrotron x-ray spectroscopy

2020· article· en· W3116684303 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan R. Adsetts, Salena Hoesterey, David A. Love, Zhifeng Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Structure · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon and Quantum Dots Applications
Canadian institutionsRosstech Signals (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsLuminescenceX-ray absorption spectroscopyThioureaSpectroscopyExcited stateAbsorption (acoustics)Carbon fibersChemistryPhotochemistryThiopheneX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyQuantum dotMoietyMaterials scienceAbsorption spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyOptoelectronicsOrganic chemistryChemical engineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A carbon quantum dot (CQD) sample series was synthesized from citric acid and varying concentrations of thiourea. The highest (sample 1) and lowest (sample 2) concentrations of thiourea exhibited unique visual effects and electronic structures. X-ray excited optical luminescence (XEOL) along with UV-visible spectroscopy provided unique insight into the absorption and emission mechanisms of samples 1 and 2, where only sample 2 emitted XEOL. Sample 1 exhibited the commonly observed aggregation caused quenching (ACQ) effects in the solid state. While sample 2 displayed unique aggregation induced emissions (AIE) effects upon exciting the sample above the C K edge. The AIE and ACQ sample differences were suspected to be from S moiety differences arising from the varying thiourea concentrations during synthesis. Furthermore, x-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) in modes of total electron yields (TEY) and partial fluorescence yields (PFY) allowed the identification of specific core and surface states of the CQDs. It was discovered that thiophene moieties were uniquely formed in the AIE sample’s surface and not anywhere in the ACQ CQD sample. The thiophene surface functionality is believed to be a significant contributor to the AIE effects seen in the XEOL studies. Understanding and preventing the common CQD ACQ mechanism allows the application of CQDs in solid lighting applications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic StructureSame topicCarbon and Quantum Dots ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207