MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ultra-Low Work-Function Ytterbium Oxide Contact For Dopant-Free Si Heterojunction Solar Cells

2025· article· en· W4413822786 on OpenAlexaff
Haozhe Wang, Yibo Zhang, Gloria Vytas, Zheng‐Hong Lu, Nazir P. Kherani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon and Solar Cell Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYtterbiumWork functionDopantMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsHeterojunctionDopingOxideWork (physics)SiliconEngineering physicsNanotechnologyMetallurgyMechanical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopant-free solar cells provide asymmetrical photocarrier transport via application of dissimilar work-function contact materials. Effective engineering of carrier selective work-function (WF) contacts have been studied at length in pursuit of high-performance heterojunction solar cells. However, much of the focus has been on high WF oxides for n-type semiconductors, while low WF metal oxides have received less attention especially in regard to junctions on p-type semiconductors. Herein, we present an ultra-low WF metal oxide, ytterbium oxide (YbOx), as a potential passivating heterojunction contact on p-silicon for solar cell applications. YbOx is processed using an industry-compatible physical vapor deposition method that entails evaporation of metallic Yb followed by self-oxidization within the vacuum chamber. The device is fabricated on 1.5 μm thick p-SOI. The heterojunction exhibits excellent light-to-current conversion properties: picoampere level dark current, high rectification ratio of up to107, and 104 light-to-dark ratio under laser illumination. A surface-gated 3-terminal device is configured to investigate photocarrier recombination and extraction with YbOx contacts, demonstrating its potential for Si heterojunction solar cells.

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 score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 topicSilicon and Solar Cell TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207