Comparison of various InGaAs-based solar cells for concentrated photovoltaics applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
InGaAs lattice matched to InP is a promising material for bottom sub-cell in a 4-junction solar cell designed for concentrated photovoltaics applications. Here we compare the performances of two structures that could replace standard monolithic InGaAs homojuntion. The first one is a stand-alone solar cell realized via epitaxial lift-off (ELO) process on a flexible substrate. The second one is a heterojunction solar cell, kept on its parent InP substrate, composed of an InP emitter and an InGaAs absorber. A third structure made of an homojunction InGaAs solar cell on an InP substrate is used as reference. Under one sun illumination the heterojunction solar cell shows the highest VOC (383 mV) and fill factor. Nevertheless, when performing under concentrated sunlight the structure is limited by a lower VOC increase rate and a high series resistance compared to the ELO cell. Indeed, ELO cell shows a lower VOC (353 mV) than the two other structures under one sun illumination but, when performing under concentration, ELO cell recovers VOC and shows a lower impact of series resistance. Therefore, both ELO and heterojunction solar cell show interesting and complementary behaviors that could be interesting to associate in an ELO-heterojunction solar cell.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".