Poly(Cyano-Substituted Diheteroareneethylene) as Active Electrode Material for Electrochemical Supercapacitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new class of low band gap thiophene polymers prepared from ( E )-α-cyanoethylene thiophene derivatives were electrochemically and physically evaluated as active electrode material for electrochemical supercapacitors. The corresponding polymers were prepared by electrochemical polymerization of these monomers from a nonaqueous solution (acetonitrile) containing tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate. The electrochemical properties and the stability under cyclic voltammetry of the polymers were found to be strongly dependent on their electronic configuration, especially in the case where the monomer has two different aromatic heterocycles. The range of stable electroactivity of the polymers in organic media spans about 2 V. Since poor stability was observed by cyclic voltammetry for poly-( E )-α-[(2-thienyl)methylene]-2-(3-methylthiophene)acetonitrile and poly-( E )-α-(2-thienylmethylene)-2-furanacetonitrile, only poly-( E )-α-[(2-thienyl)methylene]-2-thiopheneacetonitrile, poly-( E )-α-[(3-methyl-2-thienyl)methylene]-2-thiopheneacetonitrile, and poly-( E )-α-[(2-furanyl)methylene]-2-thiopheneacetonitrile were evaluated as electrode materials for an electrochemical supercapacitor. Stability tests upon potential cycling between the n- and p-doped states and a potential range of about 2 V have shown a 60% decrease of the voltammetric charge for poly-( E )-α-[(2-thienyl)methylene]-2-thiopheneacetonitrile following 2000 cycles. Preliminary galvanostatic charge−discharge cycling experiments for the best system indicated an energy density of 8.6 W h/kg while it delivered a power density of 1.6 kW/kg for a discharge time of 20 s.
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".