Comparing the Indoor and Solar Performance of Light‐Concentrating Waveguide‐Encoded Lattice Slim Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although multicrystalline Si photovoltaics have been extensively studied and applied in the collection of solar energy, the same systems suffer significant efficiency losses in indoor settings, where ambient light conditions are considerably smaller in intensity and possess greater components of non‐normal incidence. Yet, indoor light‐driven, stand‐alone devices can offer sustainable advances in next‐generation technologies such as the Internet of Things. Here, we present a non‐invasive solution to aid in photovoltaic indoor light collection—radially distributed waveguide‐encoded lattice (RDWEL) slim films (thickness 1.5 mm). Embedded with a monotonical radial array of cylindrical waveguides (±20°), the RDWEL demonstrates seamless light collection (FoV (fields of view) = 74.5°) and imparts enhancements in J SC (short circuit current density) of 44% and 14% for indoor and outdoor lighting conditions, respectively, when coupled to a photovoltaic device and compared to an unstructured but otherwise identical slim film coating.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".