Visible and infrared up-conversion emission in Er3+-doped fluorochlorozirconate glasses under 1550 nm and 980 nm excitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upconversion (UC) and photoluminescence (PL) measurements were carried out on trivalent erbium (Er 3+ ) doped fluorochlorozirconate (FCZ) glasses. The experiments show that neither PL spectra nor PL relaxation times depend on Er 3+ concentration up to 2 at.%, indicating the absence of clusterization and collective effects. Radiation diffusion was also excluded based on the PL decay lifetime being experimentally the same in powder and bulk samples. Additionally, FCZ:Er 3+ shows an efficient up-conversion in visible and IR regions under 1550 nm or 980 nm pumping. The intensity of up-converted PL bands versus pumping intensity ( G ) behavior follows PL ∝ G n with n varying from 1 to 3 depending on the PL band and pump wavelength and intensity. The observed dependences and variation of n may be interpreted by a model of linear rate equations for seven lower manifolds, approximated by six monolevels. The validity of this approximation is supported by the application of the McCumber theory to the shapes of PL and optical absorption spectra. The present model for the experimental data was also supplemented by using Judd-Ofelt parameters obtained from the absorption spectra on the same set of glasses. It should be emphasized that the model developed in this work provides a self-consistent interpretation of the upconversion experiments at 1550 and 980 nm pumping reported herein. • Upconversion (UC) and photoluminescence (PL) measurements were carried out on trivalent erbium (Er 3+ ) doped fluorochlorozirconate (FCZ) glasses. • FCZ:Er 3+ shows an efficient up-conversion in visible and IR regions under 1550 nm or 980 nm pumping. • The intensity of up-converted PL bands versus pumping intensity ( G ) behavior follows PL ∝ G n with n = 1−3 depending on the PL band and pump wavelength and intensity. • The observed dependences and variation of n may be interpreted by a model of linear rate equations for seven lower manifolds, approximated by six monolevels. • Experimental data was also supplemented by using Judd-Ofelt parameters obtained from the absorption spectra.
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".