MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414935774 · doi:10.1063/5.0278901

Experimental and DFT investigation of electronic structure, defect states, and visible luminescence in Co-doped ZnO nanocrystals

2025· article· en· W4414935774 on OpenAlexaff
Rezq Naji Aljawfi, Stephan Bartling, Mohammed Al‐Yusufi, Q.A. Drmosh, Mahdi A. Al-Maghrabi, John A. McLeod, Oliver Kuehn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicZnO doping and properties
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoluminescenceDensity functional theoryLuminescenceNanocrystalVacancy defectAtomic electron transitionDopingCrystalliteSpectroscopyX-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on surface defects, electronic structure, and visible luminescence in pristine and Co-doped ZnO nanocrystals (NCs) by combining experimental characterization with density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Co doping notably reduced the crystallite size (25–18 nm) and nearly doubled the dislocation density (δ), indicating a decline in crystal quality. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) confirmed the incorporation of Co ions in a high-spin Co2+ (3d7, e4t23) configuration, with no detectable traces of Co3+ or metallic Co0 clusters. Photoluminescence (PL) spectra exhibited a dominant blue emission (2.7–2.8 eV), primarily due to electron transitions from the conduction band to zinc vacancy (VZn) acceptor states, further enhanced by Co-induced defects. A strong correlation between the experiment and DFT (Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof generalized gradients approximation + U with mBJ corrections) elucidates the defect states responsible for visible emission. Our findings show how local atomic defects tune the optical properties and highlight the potential of Co-doped ZnO nanocrystals for blue light-emitting diode 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 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicZnO doping and propertiesFrench-language works237,207