Development of a-Si solar cells using “liquid–Si printing”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Film properties of hydrogenated amorphous silicon (a-Si:H) fabricated by “liquid–Si printing” (LSP) were investigated in detail and compared to the conventional plasma enhanced chemical deposition (plasma–CVD) method. LSP a-Si:H films (LSP films) had lower film density and larger size void than the a-Si:H films deposited by plasma–CVD (CVD films). On the other hand, the LSP films had high photoconductivity comparable to device grade a-Si:H films and higher photostability than the CVD films. Thus, the LSP films were drastically different from conventional CVD films. The conversion efficiency of the bifacial solar cells (glass/TCO/n(LSP film)/i(LSP film)/p(CVD film)/TCO/electrode), which was a problem because of the missing link between high photoconductivity and low cell performance, were improved. Undoped CVD film was inserted between the i- and p-layers to suppress the plasma damage to the active layer printed by LSP when depositing a B doped a-Si:H by plasma–CVD. As a result, we achieved conversion efficiencies of 1.1% with n side incidence and 3.1% with p side incidence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".