The Photo‐Stability of Polymer Solar Cells: Contact Photo‐Degradation and the Benefits of Interfacial Layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The organic/electrode interfaces in organic solar cells are systematically studied for their light, heat, and electrical stability in an inert atmosphere. Various extraction layers are examined for their effect on device stability, including poly(3,4‐ethylenedioxythiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) and MoO3 for hole extraction layers, as well as LiF, Cs2CO3, and lithium acetylacetonate (Liacac) for electron extraction layers. The organic/metal interface is shown to be inherently photo‐unstable, resulting in significant losses in device efficiency with irradiation. X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy measurements of the organic/aluminum interface suggest that the photo‐induced changes are chemical in nature. In general, interfacial layers are shown to substantially reduce photo‐degradation of the active layer/electrode interface. In spite of their photo‐stability, several interfacial layers present at the active layer/cathode interface suffer from thermal degradation effects due to temperature increases under exposure to light. Electrical aging effects are proven to be negligible in comparison to other major modes of degradation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".