Increased electrophosphorescent efficiency in organic light emitting diodes by using an exciton-collecting structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A phosphorescent dye, tris(1-phenylisoquinoline) iridium (III) [Ir(piq)3] doped interface of 4,4′,4″-tris(carbazol-9-yl)-triphenylamine (TCTA) and 2,9-dimethyl-4,7-diphenyl-1,10-phenanthroline (BCP) has been studied in organic light emitting diodes. Two devices with different emissive interfaces, TCTA+6%Ir(piq)3∕BCP and TCTA+6%Ir(piq)3∕BCP+1%Ir(piq)3, exhibited nearly the same red Ir(piq)3 emissions and I–V characteristics. However, the second device showed higher efficiency and luminance than the first device over the whole voltage range. The maximum efficiency of 6.0cd∕A reached at 0.026mA∕cm2 in the second device was 30% higher than that of 4.6cd∕A reached at 0.032mA∕cm2 in the first device. The improved performance of the second device is attributed to the fact that the excitons can be formed on both sides of the TCTA/BCP interface and can be more efficiently collected with the additional 1% Ir(piq)3 doped in the BCP layer. Therefore, the exciton-collecting structure, doping phosphorescent dyes into both sides of the TCTA/BCP interface, is believed to be a very useful way to optimize the performance of phosphorescent organic light emitting diodes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".