MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413221371 · doi:10.3390/photonics12080803

First-Principles and Device-Level Investigation of β-AgGaO2 Ferroelectric Semiconductors for Photovoltaic Applications

2025· article· en· W4413221371 on OpenAlexaff
Wenting Hu, Xinyu Zhang, Xiaotong Zhu, Yanli Hu, Huakai Xu, Xiang-Fu Xu, You-Da Che, Xing-Yuan Chen, Liting Niu, Bing Dai

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotonics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicZnO doping and properties
Canadian institutionsMD Precision (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFerroelectricityOptoelectronicsSemiconductorBand gapPhotovoltaic systemHeterojunctionEnergy conversion efficiencyPhotovoltaicsSolar cellTernary operationPolarization (electrochemistry)DielectricChemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ferroelectric semiconductors, with their inherent spontaneous polarization, present a promising approach for efficient charge separation, making them attractive for photovoltaic applications. The potential of β-AgGaO2, a polar ternary oxide with an orthorhombic Pna21 structure, as a light-absorbing material is evaluated. First-principles computational analysis reveals that β-AgGaO2 possesses an indirect bandgap of 2.1 eV and exhibits pronounced absorption within the visible spectral range. Optical simulations suggest that a 300 nm thick absorber layer could theoretically achieve a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of 20%. Device-level simulations using SCAPS-1D evaluate the influence of hole and electron transport layers on solar cell performance. Among the tested hole transport materials, Cu2FeSnS4 (CFTS) achieves the highest PCE of 14%, attributed to its optimized valence band alignment and reduced recombination losses. In contrast, no significant improvements were observed with the electron transport layers tested. These findings indicate the potential of β-AgGaO2 as a ferroelectric photovoltaic absorber and emphasize the importance of band alignment and interface engineering for optimizing device performance.

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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 venuePhotonicsSame topicZnO doping and propertiesFrench-language works237,207