MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409366955 · doi:10.3390/solar5020013

Loss Analysis of P3 Laser Patterning of Perovskite Solar Cells via Hyperspectral Photoluminescence Imaging

2025· article· en· W4409366955 on OpenAlexaff
Christof Schultz, Markus Fenske, Nicolas Otto, Laura‐Isabelle Dion‐Bertrand, Guillaume Gélinas, S. Marcet, Janardan Dagar, Rutger Schlatmann, Eva Unger, Bert Stegemann

Bibliographic record

VenueSolar · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPerovskite Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsPhoton Etc (Canada)
FundersUniversité du Luxembourg
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingPhotoluminescencePerovskite (structure)Materials scienceLaserOptoelectronicsRemote sensingOpticsGeologyChemistryPhysicsCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upscaling perovskite solar cells and modules requires precise laser patterning for series interconnection and spatial characterization of cell parameters to understand laser–material interactions and their impact on performance. This study investigates the use of nanosecond (ns) and picosecond (ps) laser pulses at varying fluences for the P3 patterning step of perovskite solar cells. Hyperspectral photoluminescence (PL) imaging was employed to map key parameters such as optical bandgap energy, Urbach energy, and shunt resistance. The mappings were correlated with electrical measurements, revealing that both ns and ps lasers can be utilized for effective series interconnections with minimal performance losses at optimized fluences. Our findings provide a deeper understanding of fluence-dependent effects in P3 patterning. Moreover, the results demonstrate that the process window is robust, allowing for reasonable cell performance even with deviations from optimal parameters. This robustness, coupled with the scalability of the laser patterning process, emphasize its suitability for industrial module production.

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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSolarSame topicPerovskite Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207