MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580618021 · doi:10.3390/polym9020035

Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells Based on Blends of Conjugated Polymers with II–VI and IV–VI Inorganic Semiconductor Quantum Dots

2017· review· en· W2580618021 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Kisslinger, Weidi Hua, Karthik Shankar

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPerovskite Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConjugated systemMaterials scienceSemiconductorHeterojunctionQuantum dotPolymerChemical engineeringOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bulk heterojunction solar cells based on blends of quantum dots and conjugated polymers are a promising configuration for obtaining high-efficiency, cheaply fabricated solution-processed photovoltaic devices. Such devices are of significant interest as they have the potential to leverage the advantages of both types of materials, such as the high mobility, band gap tunability and possibility of multiple exciton generation in quantum dots together with the high mechanical flexibility and large molar extinction coefficient of conjugated polymers. Despite these advantages, the power conversion efficiency (PCE) of these hybrid devices has remained relatively low at around 6%, well behind that of all-organic or all-inorganic solar cells. This is attributed to major challenges that still need to be overcome before conjugated polymer⁻quantum dot blends can be considered viable for commercial application, such as controlling the film morphology and interfacial structure to ensure efficient charge transfer and charge transport. In this work, we present our findings with respect to the recent development of bulk heterojunctions made from conjugated polymer⁻quantum dot blends, list the ongoing strategies being attempted to improve performance, and highlight the key areas of research that need to be pursued to further develop this technology.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations58
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicPerovskite Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207