MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323231265 · doi:10.1021/nl300891h

Graded Recombination Layers for Multijunction Photovoltaics

2012· article· en· W2323231265 on OpenAlexaff
Ghada I. Koleilat, Xihua Wang, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceWork functionPhotovoltaicsSolar cellDopingStack (abstract data type)Photovoltaic systemResistive touchscreenActive layerAbsorption (acoustics)Theory of solar cellsSemiconductorTandemLayer (electronics)Solar cell efficiencyNanotechnologyElectrical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multijunction devices consist of a stack of semiconductor junctions having bandgaps tuned across a broad spectrum. In solar cells this concept is used to increase the efficiency of photovoltaic harvesting, while light emitters and detectors use it to achieve multicolor and spectrally tunable behavior. In series-connected current-matched multijunction devices, the recombination layers must allow the hole current from one cell to recombine, with high efficiency and low voltage loss, with the electron current from the next cell. We recently reported a tandem solar cell in which the recombination layer was implemented using a progression of n-type oxides whose doping densities and work functions serve to connect, with negligible resistive loss at solar current densities, the constituent cells. Here we present the generalized conditions for design of efficient graded recombination layer solar devices. We report the number of interlayers and the requirements on work function and doping of each interlayer, to bridge an work function difference as high as 1.6 eV. We also find solutions that minimize the doping required of the interlayers in order to minimize optical absorption due to free carriers in the graded recombination layer (GRL). We demonstrate a family of new GRL designs experimentally and highlight the benefits of the progression of dopings and work functions in the interlayers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207