MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126730005 · doi:10.1002/pip.727

Autodiffusion: a novel method for emitter formation in crystalline silicon thin‐film solar cells

2006· article· en· W2126730005 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andreas Wolf, Barbara Terheiden, Rolf Brendel

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilicon Nanostructures and Photoluminescence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Gender and Health
KeywordsMonocrystalline siliconCommon emitterMaterials scienceSiliconPassivationCrystalline siliconSubstrate (aquarium)Amorphous siliconOptoelectronicsEpitaxyThin filmPorous siliconNanocrystalline siliconLayer (electronics)Solar cellDopantDiffusionDopingNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The in situ formation of an emitter in monocrystalline silicon thin‐film solar cells by solid‐state diffusion of dopants from the growth substrate during epitaxy is demonstrated. This approach, that we denote autodiffusion, combines the epitaxy and the diffusion into one single process. Layer‐transfer with porous silicon (PSI process) is used to fabricate n‐type silicon thin‐film solar cells. The cells feature a boron emitter on the cell rear side that is formed by autodiffusion. The sheet resistance of this autodiffused emitter is 330 Ω/□. An independently confirmed conversion efficiency of (14·5 ± 0·4)% with a high short circuit current density of (33·3 ± 0·8) mA/cm 2 is achieved for a 2 × 2 cm 2 large cell with a thickness of (24 ± 1) µm. Transferred n‐type silicon thin films made from the same run as the cells show effective carrier lifetimes exceeding 13 µs. From these samples a bulk diffusion length L > 111 µm is deduced. Amorphous silicon is used to passivate the rear surface of these samples after the layer‐transfer resulting in a surface recombination velocity lower than 38 cm/s. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Photovoltaics Research and ApplicationsSame topicSilicon Nanostructures and PhotoluminescenceFrench-language works237,207