MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307394904 · doi:10.1016/j.elecom.2022.107381

Chemical conversion of electrodeposited PbO2 to the all-inorganic cesium lead halide perovskites CsPbBr3 and CsPbCl3

2022· article· en· W4307394904 on OpenAlexafffund
Tao Liu, Samaneh Salek, Joshua C. Byers

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrochemistry Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPerovskite Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerovskite (structure)HalideBand gapMaterials scienceCaesiumInorganic chemistryElectrochemistryChemistryPhotoelectrochemistryTriiodideEnergy conversion efficiencyElectrodeOptoelectronicsCrystallographyElectrolytePhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in the development of stable, wide bandgap lead halide perovskites for application as photoelectrodes, light emitting diodes and photosensors. In this work, lead dioxide was electrodeposited from an aqueous electrochemical bath and transformed by a two-step chemical conversion process to CsPbI3, CsPbBr3 and CsPbCl3. X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy measurements confirmed the two-step chemical conversion of PbO2 to PbBr2 or PbCl2 followed by their conversion to the all-inorganic lead halide perovskites CsPbBr3 or CsPbCl3. It was found that chemical conversion of PbO2 to PbI2 and then CsPbI3 led to the non-perovskite δ-CsPbI3. This work presents the first example of the chemical transformation of electrodeposited PbO2 to PbBr2 and PbCl2 to form wide bandgap CsPbBr3 and CsPbCl3 perovskites. Absorbance spectroscopy measurements confirmed the optical gap of the wide bandgap CsPbBr3 and CsPbCl3 materials while linear sweep voltammetry measurements demonstrated that CsPbCl3 has a larger electrochemical stability window than CsPbBr3.

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 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 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrochemistry CommunicationsSame topicPerovskite Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207