Structure and Excited‐State Interactions in Composites of CdSe Nanorods and Interface‐Compatible Polythiophene‐<i>graft</i>‐poly(<i>N</i>,<i>N</i>‐dimethylaminoethyl methacrylates)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the preparation and characterization of two comb‐like graft copolymers, polythiophene‐graft‐poly(N,N‐dimethylaminoethyl methacrylates) (PT700‐g‐PDMA60 and PT220‐g‐PDMA16, where the subscripts represent the number average degree of polymerization), and an investigation of their interaction with CdSe nanorods. Each polymer contains a regiorandom polythiophene (PT) as the backbone, from which poly(N,N‐dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) (PDMA) chains are densely grafted. The PDMA arms serve as multidentate ligands for CdSe semiconductor nanocrystals and increase the compatibility between the PT backbone and the nanocrystals. Using electron microscopy, we examined the morphology and the internal structure of the nanorod/polymer composites formed in toluene. The morphology and the internal structure of the composites vary with a change in the nanorod/polymer ratio as well as with the concentration of each component. The results of steady‐state fluorescence spectroscopy indicate that the presence of the nanocrystals in toluene leads to photoluminescence (PL) quenching of the PT backbone in the graft copolymer with relatively short PDMA arms (PT220‐g‐PDMA16). In contrast, no PL quenching could be detected in composites formed from a similar polymer with longer PDMA arms (PT700‐g‐PDMA60). A likely explanation of this result is that in composites formed with PT700‐g‐PDMA60, the nanocrystals are held too far from the PT backbone for energy transfer or charge transfer to take place. magnified image
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".