Comparison of the Photoelectrochemical Characteristics of Dye-Sensitized Inverse-Opal Electrodes Prepared by Various Liquid-Phase Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The photovoltaic characteristics (short circuit current, open circuit voltage, fill factor, and photon-to-electron conversion efficiency) and electrochemical impedance measurements of normal and inverse-opal dye-sensitized electrodes were carried out in a transparent electrolyte (0.6 M triethhanolamine/0.5 M lithium perchlorate in acetonitrile) using three different methods; electrophoretic deposition, TiCl4 coating, and liquid-phase deposition (LPD). X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis revealed that each electrode was composed of anatase TiO2. The impedance elements discussed previously were substrate resistance (R0), interface resistance at indium tin oxide (ITO)/titanium oxide (TiO2) (R1), contact resistance between TiO2 particles (R2), interface resistance at TiO2/dye/electrolyte and counter electrode/electrolyte (R3), and diffusion resistance of the electrolyte (R4). The internal resistances of inverse opal electrodes were varied with the preparation methods, especially in relation to the contact resistance between R2 and R3. The electrode prepared by LPD exhibited the smallest internal resistances and the highest photon-to-electron conversion efficiency among the three methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it