Construction of High‐Quality Cu(I) Complex‐Based WOLEDs with Dual Emissive Layers Achieved by an “On‐and‐Off” Deposition Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inexpensive and highly luminescent Cu(I) complexes exhibit great potential as emitters in organic light‐emitting diodes (OLEDs), especially in white OLEDs (WOLEDs). In this work, two compounds 9‐(3‐(quinolin‐4‐yl)phenyl)‐9H‐carbazole (CzPQ) and 9,9′‐(quinoline‐4,6‐diylbis(3,1‐phenylene))bis(9H‐carbazole) (2CzPQ) are designed and synthesized to form Cu(I) complexes in situ by codeposition with copper iodide (CuI). The corresponding OLEDs show an orange red emission with a maximum external quantum efficiency (EQE) of 6.7%. Based on this result, an “on‐and‐off” strategy is proposed to achieve WOLEDs with the combination of Cu(I) complex layer and the pure ligand layer by controlling the shutter of CuI source on and off. The optimized WOLEDs give a maximum EQE of 2.4% with excellent Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage (CIE) coordinates of (0.32, 0.33) and a remarkable color‐rendering index (CRI) of 94. It can be forecasted that the device efficiency would be improved by tuning the chemical structure of the ligand.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".