Simple and High Efficiency Phosphorescence Organic Light-Emitting Diodes with Codeposited Copper(I) Emitter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phosphorescent copper(I) complexes show great promise as emitters in organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs). However, most copper(I) complexes are neither soluble nor stable toward sublimation and, hence, not amenable to the typical methods to fabricate OLEDs. In this work, a compound 3-(carbazol-9-yl)-5-((3-carbazol-9-yl)phenyl)pyridine (CPPyC) was designed as both a good ligand and host matrix. Codeposition of CPPyC and copper iodide (CuI) gives luminescent films with photoluminescent quantum yields (PLQY) as high as 100%. A dimeric copper(I) complex Cu 2 I 2 (CPPyC) 4 is formed in the thin film, characterized by X-ray absorption spectroscopy. A series of simple, highly efficient green-emitting OLEDs were demonstrated by using the codeposited film as an emissive layer. A device comprised of only CPPyC and CuI gave an external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 12.6% (42.3 cd/A) at 100 cd/m 2, while a device with tailored hole and electron transporting layers gave an efficiency of 15.7% (51.6 cd/A) at the same brightness.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".