MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942496974 · doi:10.1002/smll.201900801

Halide Perovskite Nanocrystals for Next‐Generation Optoelectronics

2019· review· en· W2942496974 on OpenAlexaff
Maning Liu, Haichang Zhang, Dawit Gedamu, Paul Fourmont, Heikki Rekola, Arto Hiltunen, Sylvain G. Cloutier, Riad Nechache, Arri Priimägi, Paola Vivo

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPerovskite Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersBusiness FinlandJane ja Aatos Erkon Säätiö
KeywordsHalideNanocrystalPerovskite (structure)Materials scienceOptoelectronicsNanotechnologyChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryChemistryCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colloidal perovskite nanocrystals (PNCs) combine the outstanding optoelectronic properties of bulk perovskites with strong quantum confinement effects at the nanoscale. Their facile and low-cost synthesis, together with superior photoluminescence quantum yields and exceptional optical versatility, make PNCs promising candidates for next-generation optoelectronics. However, this field is still in its early infancy and not yet ready for commercialization due to several open challenges to be addressed, such as toxicity and stability. Here, the key synthesis strategies and the tunable optical properties of PNCs are discussed. The photophysical underpinnings of PNCs, in correlation with recent developments of PNC-based optoelectronic devices, are especially highlighted. The final goal is to outline a theoretical scaffold for the design of high-performance devices that can at the same time address the commercialization challenges of PNC-based 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicPerovskite Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207