MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327971699 · doi:10.3390/molecules28062772

An Overview on Carbon Quantum Dots Optical and Chemical Features

2023· review· en· W4327971699 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon and Quantum Dots Applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum dotCarbon quantum dotsPhotoluminescenceNanotechnologyCarbon fibersQuantum chemicalCarbon NanoparticlesRationalization (economics)Materials scienceBiocompatibilityNanoparticlePhysicsOptoelectronicsQuantum mechanicsMoleculeComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon quantum dots are the materials of a new era with astonishing properties such as high photoluminescence, chemical tuneability and high biocompatibility. Since their discovery, carbon quantum dots have been described as nanometric high-fluorescent carbon nanoparticles, but this definition has become weaker year after year. Nowadays, the classification and the physical explanation of carbon quantum dots optical properties and their chemical structure remain matter of debate. In this review, we provide a clear discussion on these points, providing a starting point for the rationalization of their classification and a comprehensive view on the optical and chemical features of carbon quantum dots.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.295 · 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