MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560765988 · doi:10.1063/1.1560566

Characterization of the electro-optical behavior of Zn2Si0.5Ge0.5O4:Mn thin-film electroluminescent devices

2003· article· en· W1560765988 on OpenAlexaff
Gert Stuyven, Patrick De Visschere, Kristiaan Neyts, Adrian H. Kitai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroluminescenceMaterials sciencePhosphorOptoelectronicsThin filmDielectricSpace chargeSubstrate (aquarium)ElectronComposite materialNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zn 2 Si 0.5 Ge 0.5 O 4 : Mn was investigated as a green-emitting oxide phosphor for thin-film electroluminescent (EL) display applications. Detailed electro-optical characteristics of thin-film EL devices with SrTiO3 dielectrics on a glass substrate (TFEL) and EL devices with a single ceramic insulator (CIEL) have been analyzed. The steeper brightness–voltage dependency of the TFEL device is ascribed to the capability to provide high current densities and efficient light generation for both voltage polarities. The CIEL device on the other hand suffered from asymmetrical behavior, related with the lack of a top dielectric. It was found that the use of high-permittivity dielectrics in the TFEL device results in a small voltage drop over the insulating layers, enhancing the amount of charge transferred through the phosphor. Transient charge–voltage (αQp–V) measurements on the TFEL device evidence that a high positive space charge density of ∼0.68 μC/cm2 is present in the oxide phosphor during steady-state operation. In addition, the transient behavior after ultraviolet illumination indicates the presence of shallow electron traps in the phosphor, giving rise to a conductive current flow at electric fields below the threshold.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207