Measurement of the Electrical Resistance of n-Type Si Microwire/p-Type Conducting Polymer Junctions for Use in Artificial Photosynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The junction between n-type silicon microwires and p-type conducting polymer PEDOT:PSS (poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)/poly(styrenesulfonate)) was investigated using a soft contact method. Dopant levels within the microwires were varied during growth to give a highly-doped region for improved contact and a low-doped region for light absorption. The low-doped region of the microwires had a dopant density of 5 × 10 17 cm –3 while the highly-doped region had an increased dopant density of 5 × 10 18 cm –3 over ∼20 μm. Uniform, highly-doped microwires, with a dopant density of 4 × 10 19 cm –3, were used as a comparison. Regions of highly-doped n-type Si microwires ( N D = 5 × 10 18 cm –3 and 4 × 10 19 cm –3 ) contacted by PEDOT:PSS showed a significantly lower junction resistance compared to the low-doped (3 × 10 17 cm –3 ) regions of the microwire. Junctions incorporating the metal catalyst used during growth were also investigated. Microwires with copper at the interface had similar current–voltage characteristics to those observed for the highly-doped microwire/conducting polymer junction; however, junctions that incorporated gold exhibited significantly lower resistances, decreasing the iR contribution of the junction by an order of magnitude with respect to the total voltage drop in the entire structure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".