Interplay between efficiency and device architecture for small molecule organic solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small molecule organic solar cells (OSCs) have experienced a resurgence of interest over their polymer solar cell counterparts, owing to their improved batch-to-batch (thus, cell-to-cell) reliability. In this systematic study on OSC device architecture, we investigate five different small molecule OSC structures, including the simple planar heterojunction (PHJ) and bulk heterojunction (BHJ), as well as several planar-mixed structures. The different OSC structures are studied over a wide range of donor:acceptor mixing concentrations to gain a comprehensive understanding of their charge transport behavior. Transient photocurrent decay measurements provide crucial information regarding the interplay between charge sweep-out and charge recombination, and ultimately hint toward space charge effects in planar-mixed structures. Results show that the BHJ/acceptor architecture, comprising a BHJ layer with high C60 acceptor content, generates OSCs with the highest performance by balancing charge generation with charge collection. The performance of other device architectures is largely limited by hole transport, with associated hole accumulation and space charge effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".