MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012795250 · doi:10.1002/adfm.201400350

Photoactive Electrodes Incorporating Electrosprayed Bacterial Reaction Centers

2014· article· en· W2012795250 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed M. Mirvakili, Joanna E. Slota, Ashwin R Usgaocar, Ali Mahmoudzadeh, Daniel Jun, Mehr Negar Mirvakili, J. Thomas Beatty, John D. W. Madden

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Functional Materials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhotosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotocurrentMaterials scienceRhodobacter sphaeroidesPhotosynthetic reaction centreQuantum yieldPhotochemistryPurple bacteriaOptoelectronicsSemiconductorElectrodeAbsorption (acoustics)Solar cellYield (engineering)Highly oriented pyrolytic graphitePhotosynthesisGraphiteElectron transferOpticsChemistryFluorescencePhysical chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly efficient light absorption and charge separation within the photosystem and reaction center (RC) complexes of photosynthetic plants and bacteria are of great interest for solar cell and photo detector applications, since they offer almost unity quantum yield and expected ultimate power conversion efficiencies of more than 18% and 12%, respectively. In addition, the charge separated states created by these protein complexes are very long lived compared to conventional semiconductor solar cells. In this work, a novel technique is presented for the deposition of photosynthetic protein complexes, by electrospraying RCs of Rhodobacter sphaeroides onto highly ordered pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) electrodes. Remarkably, it is shown that the RCs not only survive exposure to the high electric fields but also yield peak photocurrent densities of up to 7 μA cm −2 , which is equal to the highest value reported to date.

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)0.000
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Functional MaterialsSame topicPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207