MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983709591 · doi:10.1021/cm010281p

Effect of Substitution on the Electrochemical and Xerographic Properties of Triarylamines:  Correlation to the Hammett Parameter of the Substituent and Calculated HOMO Energy Level

2001· article· en· W1983709591 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy P. Bender, John F. Graham, J. M. Duff

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsXerox (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstituentAnilineElectrochemistryChemistryCondensationPhotochemistryMaterials scienceComputational chemistryPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsElectrodePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been found that both the electrochemical and xerographic properties of a series of triarylamines vary with the nature (quantified by its Hammett parameter, σ) and the frequency of substituents that make up a triarylamine. Three series of triarylamines, encompassing a total of 35 compounds, have been synthesized by Ullman condensation of an appropriately substituted aniline with an excess of an appropriately substituted iodophenylene by a published procedure [Goodbrand, H. B.; Hu, N. X. J. Org. Chem. 1999, 64 (2), 670−674]. The xerographic properties, including transport properties, of a select number of compounds have been measured as solid-state solutions in polycarbonate-Z. The recorded xerographic properties varied with the measured oxidation potential ( E 1/2 ) of the molecule, which in turn correlates to both the Hammett parameter of the substituent and the calculated HOMO energy level of the triarylamine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations89
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicPhotochemistry and Electron Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207