MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394683119 · doi:10.1002/smll.202402371

Nickel Oxide Hole Injection Layers for Balanced Charge Injection in Quantum Dot Light‐Emitting Diodes

2024· article· en· W4394683119 on OpenAlexaff
Haoyue Wan, Eui Dae Jung, Tong Zhu, So Min Park, João M. Pina, Pan Xia, Koen Bertens, Ya‐Kun Wang, Ozan Atan, Haijie Chen, Yi Hou, Seungjin Lee, Yu‐Ho Won, Kwanghee Kim, Sjoerd Hoogland, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSamsung
KeywordsQuantum dotOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceLight-emitting diodeDiodeAcceptorDopingNickel oxideOxidePhysicsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantum dot (QD) light‐emitting diodes (QLEDs) are promising for next‐generation displays, but suffer from carrier imbalance arising from lower hole injection compared to electron injection. A defect engineering strategy is reported to tackle transport limitations in nickel oxide‐based inorganic hole‐injection layers (HILs) and find that hole injection is able to enhance in high‐performance InP QLEDs using the newly designed material. Through optoelectronic simulations, how the electronic properties of NiO x affect hole injection efficiency into an InP QD layer, finding that efficient hole injection depends on lowering the hole injection barrier and enhancing the acceptor density of NiO x is explored. Li doping and oxygen enriching are identified as effective strategies to control intrinsic and extrinsic defects in NiO x , thereby increasing acceptor density, as evidenced by density functional theory calculations and experimental validation. With fine‐tuned inorganic HIL, InP QLEDs exhibit a luminance of 45 200 cd m −2 and an external quantum efficiency of 19.9%, surpassing previous inorganic HIL‐based QLEDs. This study provides a path to designing inorganic materials for more efficient and sustainable lighting and display technologies.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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