Synthesis and Optical Properties of Thermally and Photochemically Cross-Linkable Diacetylene-Containing Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of diacetylene-containing polymers were prepared by oxidative coupling polymerization of 9,9-bis(4-propargyloxyphenyl)fluorene and dipropargyl 4,4‘-(hexafluoroisopropylidene)diphthalimide. The polymers had molecular weights of 42 000−235 300 and polydispersity indices of 1.1−1.8 as determined by gel permeation chromatography using polystyrene standards. All the polymers showed typically amorphous diffraction patterns, good solubility in organic solvents, and good film-forming capability. The polymers were readily cross-linkable upon exposure to UV light at ambient temperature and could also be thermally cured. The diacetylene groups were involved in both thermal and photocuring processes, as determined by 13 C CP/MAS NMR and FTIR means. The in-plane and out-of-plane refractive indices of these polymers varied from 1.5454 to 1.6313 and from 1.5329 to 1.6283 at 1550 nm, respectively, according to the monomer ratios in the feed. The birefringence at 1550 nm was significantly reduced from 1.25% for polymer 3e to 0.3% for polymer 3a by incorporating the fluorenyl and ether linkages into the polymer backbone. All the polymer thin films on substrates could be directly photopatterned by irradiation at 250−450 nm through a photomask.
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".