MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281621520 · doi:10.1002/chem.202200748

Carbon Dots for Carbon Dummies: The Quantum and The Molecular Questions Among Some Others

2022· review· en· W4281621520 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - A European Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon and Quantum Dots Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCarbon fibersCarbon quantum dotsNanotechnologyDomain (mathematical analysis)Work (physics)Carbon NanoparticlesQuantum dotKey (lock)Computer scienceMaterials scienceNanoparticlePhysicsComputer securityMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon Dots (CDs) are carbon nanoparticles which were discovered in 2004. Despite two decades of intensive work from the scientific community and a colossal amount of gathered experimental data, no definitive consensus exists to date on several key aspects such as the actual definition of CDs and the origin of their emissive properties. This review proposes a critical evaluation of these fundamental questions. Lay persons will also find here an alternative introduction to the CDs domain, including synthetic strategies, photophysical properties, as well as challenges and outlook of this exciting new area.

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.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · 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