A comparison of the effect of joule heating vs thermal annealing on the morphology of typical hole transport layers in organic light emitting devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-known that hole transport layers (HTLs) in organic light emitting devices (OLEDs) are more sensitive to morphological changes than other organic layers due to the lower glass transition temperatures. A high operational temperature can alter the HTL morphology, severely impacting OLED performance and stability. Although joule heating is a known factor affecting OLED stability during operation, its effect in experimental studies is typically simulated through thermal annealing of the devices rather than applying current. In this work, a comparison of the effects of joule heating vs thermal annealing on the morphological stability of N,N'-di(1-naphthyl)-N,N'-diphenylbenzidine (NPB) and N,N′-Dicarbazolyl-4,4′-biphenyl (CBP) HTLs and the impact this has on OLED performance is investigated. While thermal annealing of an OLED can be used as an approximation of joule heating, the temperature distribution profile of the OLED is different under the two stress conditions and thus can impact the morphology of the HTL differently. However, joule heating introduces a confounding factor whereby the OLEDs experience intrinsic degradation by the flow of current, aside from thermal stress. Therefore, in this work, joule heating is studied in unipolar devices that comprise solely of the HTL. Device JVL and morphology as a function of temperature for both joule heating and thermal annealing are presented as a means to evaluate stability and performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".