A performance comparison between GaInP-on-Si and GaAs-on-Si 3-terminal tandem solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pursuit of ever-higher solar cell efficiencies has focused heavily on multijunction technologies. In tandem cells, subcells are typically either contacted via two terminals (2T) or four terminals (4T). Simulations show that the less-common three-terminal (3T) design may be comparable to 4T tandem cells in its compatibility with a range of materials, operating conditions, and methods for subcell integration, yet the 3T design circumvents shading losses of the 4T intermediate conductive layers. This study analyzes the performance of two superstrate 3T III-V-on-Si (III-V//Si) tandem cells: One has slightly greater current contribution from the Si bottom cell (GaInP//Si) and the other has substantially greater current contribution from the GaAs top cell (GaAs//Si). Our results show that both tandem cells exhibit the same efficiency (21.3%), thereby demonstrating that the third terminal allows for flexibility in the selection of the top cell material, similar to the 4T design.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".