Transparent organic light-emitting devices using a MoO3/Ag/MoO3 cathode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MoO3/Ag/MoO3 (MAM) stacks are investigated for utilization as transparent cathodes in organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs). The stacks can be fabricated using simple thermal evaporation at relatively low temperatures, and can be readily and safely utilized as top electrodes, without causing deposition damage to the organic layers. Results show that it is possible to achieve efficient electron injection from the MAM electrode into organic layers by means of incorporating a suitable electron injection layer (EIL) at the interface. Results also show that a MAM stack can exhibit high optical transmittance, amounting to about 65–80% in the 400–700 nm, and a low sheet resistance (9 Ω/□). A transparent OLED with a MAM cathode incorporated with a 10 nm Bphen: Cs2CO3 (10%) EIL is studied. By fine tuning the MAM structure, optimal OLED performance has been achieved: a total luminance of 1300 cd/m2 (representing ∼1000 cd/m2 and ∼300 cd/m2 from the bottom and the top, respectively) at 20 mA/cm2 and a corresponding driving voltage of 7.2 V. The OLED exhibits a peak transmittance of ∼90% in the 450–475 nm range, and a transmittance above 45% over the entire visible (i.e., 400–700 nm) range.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".