Optical characteristics of GaAs nanowire solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reflectance, transmittance, and absorptance of GaAs nanowire (NW) arrays are calculated by solving Maxwell's equations using the finite element method. The model is compared with measurement results from well-ordered periodic GaAs NW arrays fabricated by dry etching. The model results are also compared with the reflectance measured from NWs grown by the Au-assisted vapor-liquid-solid method. The optimum NW diameter, periodicity (spacing between NWs), and length are determined to maximize absorptance of the AM1.5G solar spectrum and short circuit current density in a NW array solar cell. The optimum NW diameter, period, and length were 180 nm, 350 nm, and 5 μm, respectively, giving a photocurrent density from the NW of 27.3 mA/cm2 and corresponding to 91.3% absorption of the AM1.5 G solar spectrum. The photocurrent density saturated for NW lengths greater than 5 μm. A gold nanoparticle at the top of the NWs (used in the vapor-liquid-solid NW growth process) substantially reduced the optimum photocurrent density, while a polymer filling the space between NWs and a planar indium tin oxide contact had a relatively minor influence.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".