MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994810067 · doi:10.1117/12.2036189

Modeling a monocrystalline Cu(In,Ga)Se<sub>2</sub>single junction solar cell grown on a GaAs substrate

2013· article· en· W1994810067 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédéric Bouchard, Alexandre W. Walker, Zetian Mi, Karin Hinzer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicChalcogenide Semiconductor Thin Films
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsCopper indium gallium selenide solar cellsMonocrystalline siliconMaterials scienceSolar cellCrystalliteOpen-circuit voltageBand gapCarrier lifetimeOptoelectronicsSubstrate (aquarium)EpitaxySiliconAnalytical Chemistry (journal)CrystallographyVoltageNanotechnologyPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A polycrystalline Cu(In,Ga)Se2 (CIGS) single junction solar cell model is developed with dependencies on the molar fraction of In and Ga with a 0.8 eV Shockley-Read-Hall (SRH) trap level above the valence band. The simulated performance of this solar cell over molar fraction compares well to data published in the literature using the SRH minority carrier lifetime to fit the trend in open circuit voltage. The material parameters are then used as a foundation for a numerical model of a monocrystalline CIGS solar cell grown on a GaAs substrate with an emphasis on modeling the CIGS/GaAs interface where a molar fraction gradient in CIGS forms due to lattice mismatch induced inter-diffusion of Ga and In from the substrate and CIGS layers. Without strain effects due to the lattice mismatch, the CIGS monocrystalline solar cell has an efficiency of 18.6% under the AM1.5G spectrum (1000 W/m2) with a short circuit current density of 36.5 mA/cm2, an open circuit voltage of 0.66 V and a fill factor of 77.4%. However, when reasonable strain effects are considered, such as the formation of strained induced interface defects and threading dislocation densities (TDD), the efficiency degrades to 6% for TDD < 1x107 cm-2. The models are able to reproduce a similar structure’s measured performance using a TDD of 1.5×107 cm-2 and a surface recombination velocity of 108 cm/s at the CdS/CIGS interface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicChalcogenide Semiconductor Thin FilmsFrench-language works237,207