MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285718648 · doi:10.29026/oea.2022.210086

Beyond Lambertian light trapping for large-area silicon solar cells: fabrication methods

2022· article· en· W4285718648 on OpenAlexaff
Jovan Maksimovic, Jingwen Hu, Soon Hock Ng, Tomas Katkus, Gediminas Seniutinas, Tatiana Pinedo Rivera, Michael Stuiber, Yoshiaki Nishijima, Sajeev John, Saulius Juodkazis

Bibliographic record

VenueOpto-Electronic Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and TechnologySwinburne University of TechnologyAustralian National Fabrication Facility
KeywordsMaterials scienceOpticsLithographyOptoelectronicsPhotonic crystalWavelengthElectron-beam lithographyTrappingLaserSiliconSolar cellFabricationResistNanotechnologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Light trapping photonic crystal (PhC) patterns on the surface of Si solar cells provides a novel opportunity to approach the theoretical efficiency limit of 32.3%, for light-to-electrical power conversion with a single junction cell. This is beyond the efficiency limit implied by the Lambertian limit of ray trapping ~ 29%. The interference and slow light effects are harnessed for collecting light even at the long wavelengths near the Si band-gap. We compare two different methods for surface patterning, that can be extended to large area surface patterning: 1) laser direct write and 2) step-&-repeat 5× reduction projection lithography. Large area throughput limitations of these methods are compared with the established electron beam lithography (EBL) route, which is conventionally utilised but much slower than the presented methods. Spectral characterisation of the PhC light trapping is compared for samples fabricated by different methods. Reflectance of Si etched via laser patterned mask was ~ 7% at visible wavelengths and was comparable with Si patterned via EBL made mask. The later pattern showed a stronger absorbance than the Lambertian limit. (M.-L. Hsieh et al., Sci. Rep. 10, 11857 (2020)).

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations52
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpto-Electronic AdvancesSame topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207