Near-infrared quantum cutting luminescence in Pr3+/Yb3+ doped lead bismuth borate glass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, thermally stable lead-bismuth-borate glasses were doped with 0.5 mol% of Pr 3+ ions at several concentration levels of Yb 3+ ions. Structural characterizations were performed via Raman, differential scanning calorimetry, optical absorption and fluorescence spectra. The Judd–Ofelt intensity parameter, $${\Omega }_2$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>Ω</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:math> , of Pr 3+ doped glass was comparatively higher than those from reported ones, which reflects the increase of co-valency and asymmetry of chemical bonds in the local environment of Pr 3+ . Near-infrared emission in 900–2200 nm wavelength range was recorded through 443 nm blue laser pumping. Visible to near-IR quantum cutting and concentration quenching mechanisms were discussed to understand the luminescent behaviour. Intense IR emission ( $$\sim 1.0\,\upmu {\text {m}})$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>∼</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.0</mml:mn> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> <mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext> <mml:mo>)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> features generated by absorbing one visible photon leads to quantum efficiencies close to 128% in Pr 3+ /Yb 3+ co-doped samples which may improve the solar spectrum absorption and accordingly, increase the efficiency of c-Si solar cells. Emission cross-section, lifetime, figure of merit and gain bandwidth corresponding to Pr 3+ : $$^3F_2 \rightarrow ^3H_4$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:msup> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>F</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> <mml:msup> <mml:mo>→</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:msup> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> <mml:mn>4</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ( $$\sim 2.0\,\upmu$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>∼</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.0</mml:mn> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> m) were comparatively reported suggesting that the glass with molar composition 0.5Pr 3+ /0.1Yb 3+ might be a potential candidate for $$\sim 2.0\,\upmu$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>∼</mml:mo> <mml:mn>2.0</mml:mn> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> m laser operation with low pump threshold.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".