Impact of a Back Contact Barrier on Capacitive Measurements of Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent solar cell technology, in striving for lowest cost, results in materials with many imperfections. Capacitance measurements are a common, nondestructive method to identify defects which compromise the device performance. These techniques assume that the device includes a single blocking contact, or “top” contact; however, these imperfect devices often also have a non-ideal “back” contact. In this project, the ideal and non-ideal contact response was modeled using SCAPS software. Simple circuits, using back-to-back diodes in series, confirmed the model predictions for our experimental setup. Our subsequent measurements of a Cu(In,Ga)Se2 solar cell could then be clearly interpreted as demonstrating a non-ideal contact. This work lays the foundation for a study of the contact properties, the barrier height, relationship to bulk and interface defects in the film, and the dependence on sample preparation and stoichiometry. This work addresses a topic of significant debate in the Cu(In,Ga)Se2 solar cell research community. Results were presented at the 2013 Murdock Trust conference in Vancouver, WA and at the 2014 March Meeting of the American Physical Society in Denver, CO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".