Insights into electron and hole extraction layers for upright and inverted vacuum-deposited small molecule organic solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vacuum-deposited small molecule organic solar cells (OSCs) with various electron extraction layers (EELs) and hole extraction layers (HELs) are studied. Upright OSCs are examined for their efficiencies, and for their photo- and thermal-stabilities. It is shown that the EEL conducts only because of the subsequent top electrode metal deposition, and that exciton blocking characteristics of the EEL alone are not sufficient to grant good solar cell characteristics. To this end, wide bandgap organic HELs cannot be placed between the bottom electrode and active organic layers to achieve the same effect as wide bandgap organic EELs at the opposite end of the device. Inverted vacuumdeposited OSCs, which place the HEL adjacent to the top metal anode, can make use of a wide bandgap organic HEL in combination with a thin MoO3 layer to achieve good device performance. Thick MoO3 HELs alone are also shown to be suitable for inverted vacuum-deposited OSCs, thus simplifying device fabrication. For these inverted devices, the thickness of the HEL required to achieve good device performance is found to be substantially higher than the equivalent EEL thickness in a standard upright device.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".