An Interplay between Lossy Mode Resonance and Surface Plasmon Resonance and Their Sensing Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conducting metal oxide (CMO) supports lossy mode resonance (LMR) at the CMO-dielectric interface, whereas surface plasmon resonance (SPR) occurs at the typical plasmonic metal-dielectric interface. The present study investigates these resonances in the bi-layer (ITO + Ag) and tri-layer (ITO + Ag + ITO) geometries in the Kretschmann configuration of excitation. It has been found that depending upon the layer thicknesses one resonance dominates the other. In particular, in the tri-layer configuration of ITO + Ag + ITO, the effect of the thickness variation of the sandwiched Ag layer is explored and a resonance, insensitive to the change in the sensing medium refractive index (RI), has been reported. Further, the two kinds of RI sensing probes and the supported resonances have been characterized and compared in terms of sensitivity, detection accuracy and figure of merit. These studies will not only be helpful in gaining a better understanding of underlying physics but may also lead to the realization of biochemical sensing devices with a wider spectral range.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".