MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103918217 · doi:10.1002/047134608x.w8205

Organic Light‐Emitting Diodes

2014· other· en· W3103918217 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOrganic Light-Emitting Diodes Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOLEDAMOLEDOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceActive matrixDiodeComputer scienceWearable computerSolid-state lightingKey (lock)Light-emitting diodeNanotechnologyLayer (electronics)Thin-film transistorEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The organic light‐emitting diode (OLED) is considered the ultimate technology for displays because of its unique form factor and its ability to produce vibrant colors. It is being actively studied for use as the most desired broadband light source for next‐generation solid‐state lighting. Already, small active matrix OLED (AMOLED) displays have become popular in smartphones worldwide and even large‐sized (55 in.) AMOLED televisions are now commercially available. The key features of OLED include high energy efficiency, high color quality, environmental friendliness, and most distinctively, an ultrathin and flexible form factor, which provides a unique opportunity for a plethora of innovative designs such as wearable screens, semitransparent displays, and lighting panels. In this article, the fundamental concepts and current status of OLEDs will be presented.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.180 · 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