Evaluation of inorganic and organic light-emitting diode displays for signage application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-brightness, inorganic light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have been successfully utilized for edge-lighting of large displays for signage. Further interest in solid-state lighting technology has been fueled with the emergence of small molecule and polymer-based organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). In this paper, edgelit inorganic LED-based displays and state-of-the-art OLED-based displays are evaluated on the basis of electrical and photometric measurements. The reference size for a signage system is assumed to be 600 mm x 600mm based on the industrial usage. With the availability of high power light-emitting diodes, it is possible to develop edgelit signage systems of the standard size. These displays possess an efficacy of 18 lm/W. Although, these displays are environmentally friendly and efficient, they suffer from some inherent limitations. Homogeneity of displays, which is a prime requirement for illuminated signs, is not accomplished. A standard deviation of 3.12 lux is observed between the illuminance values on the surface of the display. In order to distribute light effectively, reflective gratings are employed. Reflective gratings aid in reducing the problem but fail to eliminate it. In addition, the overall cost of signage is increased by 50% with the use of these additional components. This problem can be overcome by the use of a distributed source of light. Hence, the organic-LEDs are considered as a possible contender. In this paper, we experimentally determine the feasibility of using OLEDs for signage applications and compare their performance with inorganic LEDs. Passive matrix, small-molecule based, commercially available OLEDs is used. Design techniques for implementation of displays using organic LEDs are also discussed. It is determined that tiled displays based on organic LEDs possess better uniformity than the inorganic LED-based displays. However, the currently available OLEDs have lower light-conversion efficiency and higher costs than the conventional, inorganic LEDs. But, signage panels based on OLEDs can be made cheaper by avoiding the use of acrylic sheet and reflective gratings. Moreover, the distributed light output and light weight of OLEDs and the potential to be built inexpensively on flexible substrates can make OLEDs more beneficial for future signage applications than the inorganic LEDs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".