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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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