Upconversion Luminescence through Cooperative and Energy‐Transfer Mechanisms in Yb<sup>3+</sup>‐Metal‐Organic Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lanthanide‐doped metal–organic frameworks (Ln‐MOFs) have versatile luminescence properties, however it is challenging to achieve lanthanide‐based upconversion luminescence in these materials. Here, 1,3,5‐benzenetricarboxylic acid (BTC) and trivalent Yb 3+ ions were used to generate crystalline Yb‐BTC MOF 1D‐microrods with upconversion luminescence under near infrared excitation via cooperative luminescence. Subsequently, the Yb‐BTC MOFs were doped with a variety of different lanthanides to evaluate the potential for Yb 3+ ‐based upconversion and energy transfer. Yb‐BTC MOFs doped with Er 3+ , Ho 3+ , Tb 3+ , and Eu 3+ ions exhibit both the cooperative luminescence from Yb 3+ and the characteristic emission bands of these ions under 980 nm irradiation. In contrast, only the 497 nm upconversion emission band from Yb 3+ is observed in the MOFs doped with Tm 3+ , Pr 3+ , Sm 3+ , and Dy 3+ . The effects of different dopants on the efficiency of cooperative luminescence were established and will provide guidance for the exploitation of Ln‐MOFs exhibiting upconversion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".