MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386346534 · doi:10.1002/smll.202304580

Changes in Hole and Electron Injection under Electrical Stress and the Rapid Electroluminescence Loss in Blue Quantum‐Dot Light‐Emitting Devices

2023· article· en· W4386346534 on OpenAlexaff
Atefeh Ghorbani, Junfei Chen, Peter Chun, Quan Lyu, Giovanni Cotella, Hany Aziz

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptoelectronicsElectroluminescenceQuantum dotMaterials scienceLight-emitting diodePhotoluminescenceElectronBlueshiftBlue lightCapacitancePhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blue quantum dot light-emitting devices (QLEDs) suffer from fast electroluminescence (EL) loss when under electrical bias. Here, it is identified that the fast EL loss in blue QLEDs is not due to a deterioration in the photoluminescence quantum yield of the quantum dots (QDs), contrary to what is commonly believed, but rather arises primarily from changes in charge injection overtime under the bias that leads to a deterioration in charge balance. Measurements on hole-only and electron-only devices show that hole injection into blue QDs increases over time whereas electron injection decreases. Results also show that the changes are associated with changes in hole and electron trap densities. The results are further verified using QLEDs with blue and red QDs combinations, capacitance versus voltage, and versus time characteristics of the blue QLEDs. The changes in charge injection are also observed to be partially reversible, and therefore using pulsed current instead of constant current bias for driving the blue QLEDs leads to an almost 2.5× longer lifetime at the same initial luminance. This work systematically investigates the origin of blue QLEDs EL loss and provides insights for designing improved blue QDs paving the way for QLEDs technology commercialization.

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)0.001
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicQuantum Dots Synthesis And PropertiesFrench-language works237,207