MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stable, Bromine-Free, Tetragonal Perovskites with 1.7 eV Bandgaps via A-Site Cation Substitution

2020· article· en· W3036238087 on OpenAlexaff
Ziru Huang, Bin Chen, Laxmi Kishore Sagar, Yi Hou, Andrew H. Proppe, Hao‐Ting Kung, Fanglong Yuan, Andrew Johnston, Makhsud I. Saidaminov, Eui Hyuk Jung, Zheng‐Hong Lu, Shana O. Kelley, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Materials Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPerovskite Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsHalideTetragonal crystal systemBand gapPerovskite (structure)BromineMaterials scienceCrystal structureIonic radiusIonic bondingCrystallographyInorganic chemistryChemistryOptoelectronicsIonOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal halide perovskite absorbers with wide bandgaps (1.6–1.7 eV) that are suitable for tandem devices typically require high Br concentrations; this renders the material prone to halide segregation and degradation. Inorganic, bromine-free CsPbI3 has a wide bandgap of 1.7 eV and does not suffer from halide segregation; however, these active layers are not stable at room temperature. Here, we report a method to create stable tetragonal perovskites with a bandgap near 1.7 eV: we add small amounts of large A-site cations having ionic radii between 272 and 278 pm—dimethylammonium (DMA) and guanidinium (Gua)—into the crystal lattice. When we deploy perovskites using mixed Cs and these large organic cations, we achieve stable, wide bandgap perovskites with power conversion efficiencies of 15.2% and V OC of 1.19 V. This study extends materials selection for wide bandgap Cs-based perovskites.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Materials LettersSame topicPerovskite Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207