MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Addressing Safety Issues in Development of Quantum Dot Incorporated EVA Lamination of Photovoltaic Devices

2019· article· en· W3005473854 on OpenAlexaff
Bahareh Sadeghimakki, Yaxin Zheng, Roohollah Samadzadeh Tarighat, Jacob A.L. Brunning, Hrilina Ghosh, Siva Sivoththaman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical Safety and Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminationNanomaterialsQuantum dotNanotechnologyMaterials sciencePhotovoltaic systemEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerosolized quantum dots (QDs) and other nanoparticles (NPs) represent a significant safety hazard in the development of large-scale manufacturing processes that utilize nanomaterials. The safety concerns posed by nanoparticle exposure limit work even at the research and prototyping stage. QDs, which can be composed of a variety of semiconductor materials, are typically in the 1-10 nm size range. Material selection is an important aspect of safety risks, as many common QDs have highly toxic Cd- or Pb- based structures that magnify safety risks. In this work, the integration of QDs into photovoltaic (PV) devices is demonstrated during module lamination, in which QD film is deposited onto the solar glass and laminated in contact with ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA). We present safe handling methods and considerations for QD EVA lamination in a research and prototyping environment. Before implementation in large- scale, large-area manufacturing environments, it is significant to establish safety procedures in handling of nanomaterials at the research phase. This work presents development and integration of nanomaterials in the R&D phase of PV, and provides some guidelines on implementation of safety measures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChemical Safety and Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207