On the Relationship Between Donor/Acceptor Interface Energy Levels and Open‐Circuit Voltages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy offset (EDA) from a number of donor/acceptor heterojunctions is measured using ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy. It is found that substrate work functions have little impact on the energy level alignments at donor/acceptor heterojunctions. Planar‐heterojunction organic photovoltaic cells are made to test the relationship between energy offset and open‐circuit voltage (VOC). VOC is found to increase linearly as a function of EDA. The VOC, however, takes a surprising turn at EDA = 1.5 eV and starts to decrease as a function of donor–acceptor energy levels. To explain this experimental observation, a theoretical model to quantify the relationship between VOC and EDA is developed. The proposed model well explains the experimental data and, in particular, the reverse trend of VOC on EDA. By grouping several material constants into one variable, a simple universal plot that well describes the experimental data for both planar‐heterojunction and bulk‐heterojunction cells is generated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".