MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405925655 · doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.162177

Ultrafast laser-induced formation of AgO and Ag2O on silver

2024· article· en· W4405925655 on OpenAlexafffund
David Girard, Ariana Rodríguez Escamilla, Fabio Variola, Pierre Berini, Arnaud Weck

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Surface Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-Ablation Synthesis of Nanoparticles
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)University of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUltrashort pulseLaserMaterials scienceNanotechnologyChemical physicsChemistryOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrafast lasers have been widely used to texture materials, and while a lot of focus has been placed on controlling surface morphology, literature is lacking on ultrafast laser-induced surface chemistry, even though surface chemistry is essential in many applications. To better understand surface chemistry changes during ultrafast laser ablation, a femtosecond laser was used here to irradiate silver samples in air. The laser ablated craters were analysed with Raman spectroscopy and reveal the formation of Ag 2 O and AgO at different pulse energies and number of pulses. A mechanistic picture for the formation of both silver oxides and their transformation into Ag 2 CO 3 , Ag 2 SO 3 and Ag 2 SO 4 is proposed. Some laser-induced periodic surface structures LIPSSs were also observed on some craters, as well as nanoparticles arranged in concentric patterns. • Ag 2 O and AgO were formed while machining silver with a femtosecond laser. • Number of pulses and pulse energy influenced the types and amount of oxide. • Ag 2 CO 3 and Ag 2 SO 3 /Ag 2 SO 4 were formed when the silver oxide aged in ambient air. • LIPSSs and concentric rings were found when viewing the craters under SEM. • A mechanistic picture is proposed to understand oxide formation and decomposition.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Surface ScienceSame topicLaser-Ablation Synthesis of NanoparticlesFrench-language works237,207