MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986001638 · doi:10.1364/oe.22.00a282

Imperfectly geometric shapes of nanograting structures as solar absorbers with superior performance for solar cells

2014· article· en· W1986001638 on OpenAlexafffund
Nghia Nguyen-Huu, Michael Čada, Jaromı́r Pištora

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicOptical Coatings and Gratings
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGratingOpticsAbsorptancePoynting vectorMaterials scienceBlazed gratingNanolithographyOptoelectronicsDiffraction gratingPhysicsFabricationMagnetic fieldReflectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expectation of perfectly geometric shapes of subwavelength grating (SWG) structures such as smoothness of sidewalls and sharp corners and nonexistence of grating defects is not realistic due to micro/nanofabrication processes. This work numerically investigates optical properties of an optimal solar absorber comprising a single-layered silicon (Si) SWG deposited on a finite Si substrate, with a careful consideration given to effects of various types of its imperfect geometry. The absorptance spectra of the solar absorber with different geometric shapes, namely, the grating with attached nanometer-sized features at the top and bottom of sidewalls and periodic defects within four and ten grating periods are investigated comprehensively. It is found that the grating with attached features at the bottom absorbs more energy than both the one at the top and the perfect grating. In addition, it is shown that the grating with defects in each fourth period exhibits the highest average absorptance (91%) compared with that of the grating having defects in each tenth period (89%), the grating with attached features (89%), and the perfect one (86%). Moreover, the results indicate that the absorptance spectrum of the imperfect structures is insensitive to angles of incidence. Furthermore, the absorptance enhancement is clearly demonstrated by computing magnetic field, energy density, and Poynting vector distributions. The results presented in this study prove that imperfect geometries of the nanograting structure display a higher absorptance than the perfect one, and provide such a practical guideline for nanofabrication capabilities necessary to be considered by structure designers.

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicOptical Coatings and GratingsFrench-language works237,207