Molecular routes to Cu<sub>2</sub>ZnSnS<sub>4</sub>: A comparison of approaches to bulk and thin-film materials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A range of xanthates (R′ 3 P) 2 CuS 2 COR [R′ = Ph, R = Et (1), i-Pr (2), t-Bu (3), t-Amyl (4); R′ = PhO, R = Et (5), R′ = n-Bu, R = Et (6), Bu n (7)], M(S 2 COR) 2 [M = Sn R = Et (8); Zn, R = Et (10), i-Pr (11), n-Pr (12), n-Bu (13), n-Hex (14)], Sn(S 2 COEt) 4 (9), Zn(S 2 COEt) 2 .TMEDA (15) have been synthesised and their thermal decomposition profiles delineated by TGA. A parallel range of dithiocarbamates (R′ 3 P) 2 CuS 2 CN(Me)R [R′ = Ph, R = Bu n (16), Bz (17)], M[S 2 CN(Me)R] 2 [M = Sn, R = Bu n (18), Bz (19); M = Zn, R = Bu n (21), Bz (22)] has been similarly assessed. Although precursor combinations have been found from these systems that generate Cu 2 ZnSnS 4 (CZTS) from either a bulk decomposition (1, 8, 10 at 400 °C/Ar; Cu 2 Zn 1.02 Sn 0.74 S 4.6 ), from a doctor-bladed film (7, 8, 13 at 400 °C/Ar; Cu 2 Zn 1.2 Sn 1.0 S 3.6 ), and as nanoparticles (7, 8, 13 in octadecane/oleic acid, 150 °C; Cu 2 Zn 1.0 Sn 0.7 S 2.6 ), attempts to deposit CZTS by aerosol-assisted CVD has proved more challenging and only successful from the dithiocarbamates 16, 18, 21 (350 °C; Cu 2 Zn 0.9 Sn 0.7 ). As part of this work the crystal structures of 2–5, 8, 16, and the dithiocarbamate decomposition product {Sn[S 2 CN(Me)Bu n )] 2 S} 2 (20) have been determined.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it