MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507976862 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b05940

Assessing the Band Structure of CuInS<sub>2</sub> Nanocrystals and Their Bonding with the Capping Ligand

2015· article· en· W2507976862 on OpenAlexafffund
Amy Tapley, Lijia Liu, Xiaoyu Cui, Lucia Zuin, David A. Love, Jigang Zhou, Tsun‐Kong Sham, Zhifeng Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsRosstech Signals (Canada)Canadian Light Source (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDirectorate for Computer and Information Science and EngineeringUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Light Source
KeywordsNanocrystalBand gapLigand (biochemistry)Materials scienceAbsorption (acoustics)Band bendingEnergy conversion efficiencyPhase (matter)Absorption spectroscopyPhotovoltaic systemSolar cellFacet (psychology)OptoelectronicsNanotechnologyChemistryOpticsPhysicsOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CuInS 2 (CIS) nanocrystals (NCs) prepared optimally via a one-pot solvothermal method exhibit a high absorption coefficient and an ideal band gap for solar cell light-absorbing materials. We find that the initial Cu/In ratio in the synthesis determines the final composition of CIS, and this further dictates the photoelectrochemical performance of the CIS NC films. X-ray absorption near-edge spectroscopy excludes the presence of a secondary phase and suggests a difference in surface band bending and in ligand–CIS interaction. These findings will aid in optimizing the design of CIS NC films to achieve the highest possible photovoltaic efficiency.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicQuantum Dots Synthesis And PropertiesFrench-language works237,207