MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308736435 · doi:10.1063/5.0099291

The effect of substrate deposition temperature on the electrical and optical properties of C60 thin films

2022· article· en· W4308736435 on OpenAlexafffund
B. Abdel Samad, É. Belanger, Christine Duguay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFullerene Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationUniversité de Moncton
KeywordsThin filmMaterials scienceSubstrate (aquarium)Band gapDielectricDeposition (geology)EvaporationAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OptoelectronicsChemistryNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the effects of the substrate deposition temperature on the photovoltaic performance of fullerene (C60) thin films. These thin films were deposited via thermal evaporation at substrate temperatures from 20 to 250 °C. The optical and electrical properties of the films were dependent on the substrate deposition temperature, and improvements in film optical properties were noted for certain temperatures. Both the optical constants n and k and the dielectric constants show theoretical and experimental decreases with the substrate temperature due to the creation of crystalline structures in the thin films. Despite differences between the theoretical and experimental optical constants, the nature of the decrease is similar. The film porosity calculated from the optical constants increased more than 50% for greater substrate temperatures. The conductivity of the films also increased with the substrate temperature and the activation energy ranged from 0.25 to 0.31 eV. We demonstrate an increased energy gap with temperature using a Tauc-plot, and the photopic and solar transmittances improved with the increased substrate temperature during deposition.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicFullerene Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207