Correlation Between Triplet–Triplet Annihilation and Electroluminescence Efficiency in Doped Fluorescent Organic Light‐Emitting Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Triplet–triplet annihilation (TTA) is studied in a wide range of fluorescent host:guest emitter systems used in organic light‐emitting devices (OLEDs). Strong TTA is observed in host:guest systems in which the dopant has a limited charge‐trapping capability. On the other hand, systems in which the dopant can efficiently trap charges show insignificant TTA, an effect that is due, in part, to the efficient quenching of triplet excitons by the trapped charges. Fluorescent host:guest systems with the strongest TTA are found to give the highest OLED electroluminescence efficiency, a phenomenon attributed to the role of TTA in converting triplet excitons into additional singlet excitons, thus appreciably contributing to the light output of OLEDs. The results shed light on and give direct evidence for the phenomena behind the recently reported very high efficiencies attainable in fluorescent host:guest OLEDs with quantum efficiencies exceeding the classical 25% theoretical limit.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".