Not all silicon quantum dots are equal: photostability of silicon quantum dots with and without a thick amorphous shell
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Luminescent colloidal silicon quantum dots (SiQDs) are sustainable alternatives to metal-based QDs for various optical applications. While the materials are reliant on their photoluminescence efficiency, the relationship between the structure and photostability of SiQDs is yet to be well studied. An amorphous silicon (a-Si) shell was recently discovered in SiQDs prepared by thermally-processed silicon oxides. As a-Si is known as a source of defects upon UV irradiation, the disordered shell could potentially have an adverse effect on the optical properties of nanoparticles. Herein, the photostability of ∼5 nm diameter SiQDs with an amorphous shell was compared with that of over-etched SiQDs of equivalent dimensions that bore an a-Si shell of negligible thickness. An UV-induced degradation study was conducted by subjecting toluene solutions of SiQDs to 365 nm light-emitting diodes (LEDs) under an inert atmosphere for predetermined times up to 72 hours. The structure, composition, and optical responses of the exposed SiQDs were evaluated.
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".