MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071137131 · doi:10.1063/1.2966140

A comparison of CuO and Cu2O hole-injection layers for low voltage organic devices

2008· article· en· W2071137131 on OpenAlexaff
Gayle Murdoch, Mark Greiner, Michael G. Helander, Z. B. Wang, Zheng Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCopper-based nanomaterials and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBand bendingIndium tin oxideMaterials scienceOLEDOxideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)DipoleDiodeOptoelectronicsX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyThin filmChemistryNanotechnologyChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cu 2 O and CuO have been grown with an aim to reduce junction electrical resistance when interfaced with N,N′-bis(1-naphthyl)-N,N′-diphenyl-1,1′ biphenyl 4,4′-diamine (NPB). Organic light-emitting diodes employing Cu/CuO anodes have equivalent driving voltages as devices made with indium tin oxide. Hole-injection barriers are calculated from current-voltage characteristics of CuO/NPB/Cu and Cu2O/NPB/Cu devices via theoretical simulation. Photoelectron spectroscopies are used to measure oxide valence band spectra, interfacial dipole formation, and band bending during in situ sequential deposition of NPB on each oxide. Calculated hole-injection barriers and those derived from photoemission results accord well, explaining the superior hole injection at the CuO-NPB interface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics LettersSame topicCopper-based nanomaterials and applicationsFrench-language works237,207