MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086092476 · doi:10.1117/12.872882

Simulation, modeling, and comparison of III-V tunnel junction designs for high efficiency metamorphic multi-junction solar cells

2010· article· en· W2086092476 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre W. Walker, Jeffrey F. Wheeldon, Christopher E. Valdivia, Gitanjali Kolhatkar, Karin Hinzer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolar cellFermi levelGallium arsenideCondensed matter physicsTunnel junctionMaterials sciencePhysicsElectronOptoelectronicsQuantum tunnelling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulations of AlxGa1-xAs/GaAs (x = 0.3) and AlxGa1-xAs/AlxGa1-xAs (x < 0.2) tunnel junction J-V characteristics are studied for integration into a 2D metamorphic multi-junction solar cell model composed of GaInP/GaAs/InGaAs. A comparison of the simulated solar cell J-V characteristics under AM1.5D spectrum is discussed in terms of short circuit current density (Jsc), open circuit voltage (VOC), fill factor (FF) and efficiency (η) for both tunnel junction designs. Using AlxGa1-xAs/GaAs top and bottom tunnel junctions, the metamorphic solar cell obtained values of Jsc = 12.3 mA/cm2, VOC = 2.56 V, FF = 0.81 and η = 25.5%, whereas the solar cell with the AlxGa1-xAs/AlxGa1-xAs top and bottom tunnel junctions reported values of Jsc = 12.3 mA/cm2, VOC = 2.22 V, FF = 0.81 and η = 22.1%. At open circuit voltage, energy band diagrams show minimal curvature in the electron and hole quasi Fermi levels; furthermore, the difference between the top sub-cell electron quasi Fermi level and the bottom sub-cell hole quasi Fermi level is shown to be equal to qVOC for both designs. The energy band diagram of the complete structure is compared for both tunnel junction designs, showing the difference in energy levels that correspond to the difference in measured open circuit voltage. The observed decrease in open circuit voltage was ΔVOC = 0.34 V, which was attributed to the difference in tunnel junction material band parameters such as bandgap, valence and conduction band offsets at heterojunctions and Fermi level degeneracies due to doping concentration differences.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207