Thin conductive films sputtered on anodized aluminum substrates for dye-sensitized solar cell fabrication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of using aluminum as a substrate for dye-sensitized solar cells (DSCs) was studied. In order to do so aluminum coupons were anodized in oxalic acid and sputtered with a conductive thin layer of either titanium, molybdenum or indium-tin oxide (ITO). The titanium-coated substrates were used as anodes or cathodes in DSCs in pair with conductive glass electrodes. In turn the molybdenum and ITO-coated substrates were only used as cathodes. The efficiency of the DSCs and their stability were measured by irradiating them using a solar simulator calibrated to reproduce the irradiation of the sun at the Earth's surface. The maximum values of efficiency measured were 6.4%, 4.5% and 2.1% for titanium, molybdenum and ITO cells respectively. The high resistivity of the ITO sputtered film was found to be responsible for the low efficiency of these DSCs. The degradation of the overall conversion efficiency of titanium-based DSCs was studied over 10 days. It was found that the efficiency decreased with time partly due to the reaction of the electrolyte with the metallic electrode. The evaporation of the volatile electrolyte due to sealant limitations was also found responsible for part of the decrease in the efficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".