MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408100598 · doi:10.1109/tns.2025.3547661

Exploring the Impacts of Zone Refining on the Purification and Optical Band Gap of CsPbBr<sub>3</sub> Crystals for Radiation Detection

2025· article· en· W4408100598 on OpenAlexafffund
Mert Turfanda, David A. Kunar, Matthew F. Webster, S.S. Nagorny, Pengli Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOptical and Acousto-Optic Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMaterials scienceParticle detectorRefining (metallurgy)RadiationOptoelectronicsOpticsBand gapPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple cesium lead bromide (CsPbBr3) crystal ingots were produced through synthesis, purification, and zone refining under consistent experimental conditions. The crystals, measuring 15 mm$\times 25$mm$\times 235$mm with a mass of 200 g, exhibited a gradient from a transparent, pure tip to a darker, impurity-rich heel. Phase analysis of the synthesized powders and the bulk crystals after zone refining confirmed a pure orthorhombic CsPbBr3 structure. Comparative materials characterization using Scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) revealed a reduction in predominant carbon (C) impurity from 11% to 12% in the heels to below 5% in the tips by weight, along with trace amounts of iron (Fe) and silicon (Si). Optical band gap measurements on the ingots with varying crystal quality and impurity content identified a stable average band gap of 2.30 eV via UV-Vis reflectance spectroscopy, closely aligning with theoretical values. The results suggest that band gap energies remain unaffected by variations in carbon impurity levels or crystal quality, underscoring the robustness of CsPbBr3 crystals under the studied conditions. This study demonstrates the potential of the optimized zone refining technique in producing high-purity CsPbBr3 crystals for radiation detection applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicOptical and Acousto-Optic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207