Effects of cerium oxide and cerium sulfate on the optical behavior of synthesized garnet glass ceramics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, YAG silicate glasses were prepared by incorporating cerium sulfate and cerium oxide salts (composition: 17YO3-33Al2O3-40SiO2-2AlF3-3NaF-2CeO2-3B2O3) using the melting method. Subsequently, glass ceramics were obtained through heat treatment of the base glasses. According to the photoluminescence spectra of both glasses, emissions were observed at wavelengths of 466 nm and 435 nm, attributed to cerium ions. It was shown that the garnet crystals formed less during the heat treatment process in the sample containing cerium sulfate compared to the sample with cerium oxide. The emission spectra of both glass-ceramics, when excited at 240 nm, fall within the wavelength range of 460 nm. Also, emissions at wavelengths of 534 nm and 660 nm were observed under excitation at 340 nm. Heat treatments were conducted using three methods: in an oxide atmosphere using a tubular furnace (single-step), via spark plasma sintering (SPS) of powder, and in a hydrogen atmosphere (with two-steps heating). According to the XRD results, the entry of cerium into the garnet structure was affected by the heat treatment duration of 24 h and the temperature of 1060 °C. Finally, by comparing the spectroscopic results, it was found that the optical response of the garnet glass-ceramic synthesized in the hydrogen atmosphere occurred at a wavelength of 400 nm, suggesting its potential application in the LED industry.
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".