A Comparison of the Performances of Different Mesoporous Titanias in Dye‐Sensitized Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work aims at optimizing titanium dioxide morphology for dye‐sensitized solar cells applications. Five different anatase phase mesoporous titanias were prepared and tested as photoanodes in dye‐sensitized solar cells. The materials were prepared by using a template approach. Two materials were synthesized by using monodisperse silica nanospheres and the other three using two different organic templating agents (Pluronic P123 and Brij 58). A complete characterization of the obtained materials was performed by powder XRD, FEG‐SEM, UV‐Vis reflectance spectroscopy, BET surface area measurements, and TG‐DTA. Several cells were assembled using N719 as dye and a nonvolatile electrolyte based on benzonitrile. The cells were tested by means of J-V curves under simulated solar radiation, IPCE, and dark current measurements. The highest efficiencies were achieved with titania prepared by using Pluronic P123 as template (ηmax = 6.8%), while the lowest efficiencies were recorded with using titania samples prepared with the silica nanospheres template (ηmin = 5.7%). The different performances of the samples are examined and discussed.
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".