MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328583382 · doi:10.1063/1.4944880

Columnar recombination for X-ray generated electron-holes in amorphous selenium and its significance in a-Se x-ray detectors

2016· article· en· W2328583382 on OpenAlexaff
Oleksandr Bubon, K. Jandieri, S. D. Baranovskiǐ, Safa Kasap, A. Reznik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence Properties of Advanced Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsRecombinationElectric fieldElectronAtomic physicsSaturation (graph theory)ExcitationAmorphous solidPhotocurrentRange (aeronautics)Materials scienceCondensed matter physicsPhysicsChemistryOptoelectronicsCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although amorphous selenium (a-Se) has a long and successful history of application in optical and X-ray imaging, some of its fundamental properties are still puzzling. In particularly, the mechanism of carrier recombination following x-ray excitation and electric field and temperature dependences of the electron-hole pair creation energy (Wehp) remain unclear. Using the combination of X-ray photocurrent and pulse height spectroscopy measurements, we measure Wehp in a wide range of temperatures (218–320 K) and electric fields (10–100 V/µm) and show that the conventional columnar recombination model which assumes Langevin recombination within a column (a primary electron track) fails to explain experimental results in a wide range of electric fields and temperatures. The reason for the failure of the conventional model is revealed in this work, and the theory of the columnar recombination is modified to include the saturation of the recombination rate at high electric field in order to account for the experimental results in the entire range of fields and temperatures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicLuminescence Properties of Advanced MaterialsFrench-language works237,207