Study of radiation shielding and luminescence properties of 1.5 µm emission from Er3+ doped zinc yttrium borate glasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year, a new material composition composed of various oxides glasses emerges, and researchers investigate fascinating properties because of which they contribute more scientific evidence to tailor their properties to enhance its technological importance in solid-state device applications. In purview of such contribution the present work provide a new material composed of (50- x )B 2 O 3 + 45ZnO+ 5Y 2 O 3 + x Er 2 O 3 where ( x = 0.0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) glasses which were prepared with and without yttrium (x = 0.0, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) content. To determine their suitability, various physical, optical, and radiation shielding tests were performed on the synthesized glasses. In this perspective, we highlight some aspects of the prepared glasses, density of the glasses increases with increasing concentration of high ‘z′ oxides , interestingly non-bridging oxygen’s increases and bandgap decreases when erbium content introduced in the matrix. The oscillator strength was evaluated for the observed eight transitions for the present glasses and found to be within the limits as per the root mean square fitting. The Judd-Ofelt theory was used to estimate the Er 3+ ions' spectral transition, and the trend (Ω 6 > Ω 2 > Ω 4 ) for the current glasses indicates that the ligands and Er 3+ ions have weak bonds with one another. The lifetime τ exp of 4 I 13/2 transition shows an increase in its value from 112 μs to 238 μs for 0.5 mol% and 1.0 mol% Er 2 O 3 concentration respectively. At 1.5 µm, the 4 I 13/2 → 4 I 15/2 transition-related photoemission band is notable because it is useful for IR laser applications. The optical gain co-efficient of the prepared glasses was investigated using the absorption gain cross-section, emission cross-section, and optical gain cross-section. The near-infrared absorption and emission reveal their role in IR device applications. Radiation shielding properties like the mass attenuation coefficient ((µ m ), effective electron density (N eff ), and effective atomic numbers (Z eff ) are critical system of measurements for evaluating transparent material shielding performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".