MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044306173 · doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b00083

Electroactive and Photoactive Poly[Isoindigo<i>-alt-</i>EDOT] Synthesized Using Direct (Hetero)Arylation Polymerization in Batch and in Continuous Flow

2015· article· en· W2044306173 on OpenAlexafffund
François Grenier, Badrou Réda Aïch, Yu‐Ying Lai, Maxime Guérette, Andrew B. Holmes, Ye Tao, Wallace W. H. Wong, Mario Leclerc

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry of Materials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOrganic Electronics and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustralian Renewable Energy AgencyAustralian Research CouncilKillam TrustsUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsPolymerizationMonomerMaterials sciencePolymerOrganic electronicsChemical engineeringTransistorCombinatorial chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a combined approach was used to obtain a low-cost material for organic electronics by focusing on inexpensive monomers, short synthetic pathway, high-yielding polymerization method, low waste, and easy scalability. To achieve this, a new material, poly[isoindigo - alt - 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene], was synthesized using direct (hetero)arylation polymerization (DHAP). Only a few synthetic steps are required to obtain this material, and no organometallic intermediates are used. In order to make a bigger step toward a truly inexpensive technology, continuous flow methods were applied for the first time to DHAP. This method helped solving a common problem encountered in conjugated polymers synthesis, namely, batch-to-batch variations. Electronic properties of this polymeric material were evaluated using field effect transistors (μ h = 7 × 10 –3 cm 2 ·V –1 ·s –1 ) and solar cells (η = 3.0%).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations84
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry of MaterialsSame topicOrganic Electronics and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207