Micro‐Raman spectroscopic characterization of a tunable electrochromic device for application in smart windows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An asymmetric electrochromic (EC) device based on an active EC tungsten oxide–titanium oxide (WO3–TiO2) layer was constructed. The EC active layer consisted predominantly of monoclinic WO3 nanocrystallites with a minor additional component of hexagonal WO3 and amorphous TiO2. Detailed micro‐Raman spectroscopic studies of the intercalation and deintercalation of lithium in the EC active layer of the EC device as a function of the applied voltage were performed. Three significant structural stages occur upon intercalating Li into the WO3–TiO2 layer when coloration potentials of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 V are applied to the EC device. In the first stage (applied potential of 1.0 V), the m‐Lix WO3 phase is retained. In the second stage, (applied potential of 1.5 and 2.0 V) the m‐Lix WO3 transforms to a tetragonal phase. In the third stage, (applied potential of 3.0 V) the Raman spectrum exhibits no spectral bands, showing that Lix WO3 has attained the highest‐symmetry cubic phase. This phase sequence is confirmed by the X‐ray diffraction (XRD) measurement. These phase transitions can be reversed and, upon complete deintercalation, m‐WO3 with traces of h‐WO3 is recovered. Optical transmission studies were performed in conjunction with Raman and XRD studies. A shift of the optical transmittance peak position from 639 to 466 nm and reduction in the width of the transmittance curve with increasing applied potential opens up the possibility of smart window applications for the nanocrystalline WO3‐based EC device. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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".