Do [<i>all</i>]-<i>S</i>,<i>S</i>′-Dioxide Oligothiophenes Show Electronic and Optical Properties of Oligoenes and/or of Oligothiophenes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive photophysical and spectroscopic (electronic and Raman) study guided by density functional theory, DFT, CIS, and correlated ab initio calculations has been performed on a series of fully oxidized oligothiophenes with variable chain length, and up to four rings. A comparison with the properties of oligoenes and oligothiophenes is proposed. Absorption, fluorescence, lifetimes, flash-photolysis, phosphorescence, two-photon absorption, Raman, resonance Raman, and thermospectroscopy data are collected and interpreted according to the obtained theoretical results. The interest is focused on the ground electronic state and in the low-lying excited electronic states. Full oxygenation of the sulfur atoms of oligothiophenes results in: (i) restricted inter-ring isomerization such as observed from the absorption spectra; (ii) an effective quenching of fluorescence, and (iii) the appearance of dual emission. The emission features are explained by the interference of a dipole-allowed and a dipole-forbidden singlet excited states leading to simultaneous lighting from a local Frenkel and an intramolecular charge transfer photon-releasing configurations. These two excited states contribute to the broadening of the light emission spectrum. These properties highlight the similarity of these samples to that of oligoenes with comparable number of pi-electrons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".