Performance comparison of AlGaAs, GaAs and InGaP tunnel junctions for concentrated multijunction solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Four tunnel junction (TJ) designs for multijunction (MJ) solar cells under high concentration are studied to determine the peak tunnelling current and resistance change as a function of the doping concentration. These four TJ designs are: AlGaAs/AlGaAs, GaAs/GaAs, AlGaAs/InGaP and AlGaAs/GaAs. Time‐dependent and time‐average methods are used to experimentally characterize the entire current–voltage profile of TJ mesa structures. Experimentally calibrated numerical models are used to determine the minimum doping concentration required for each TJ design to operate within a MJ solar cell up to 2000‐suns concentration. The AlGaAs/GaAs TJ design is found to require the least doping concentration to reach a resistance of <10 −4 Ω cm 2 followed by the GaAs/GaAs TJ and finally the AlGaAs/AlGaAs TJ. The AlGaAs/InGaP TJ is only able to obtain resistances of ≥5 × 10 −4 Ω cm 2 within the range of doping concentrations studied. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".