One donor–two acceptor (D–A<sub>1</sub>)‐(D–A<sub>2</sub>) random terpolymers containing perylene diimide, naphthalene diimide, and carbazole units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A series of one donor–two acceptor (D–A 1 )‐(D–A 2 ) random terpolymers containing a 2,7‐carbazole donor and varying compositions of perylene diimide (PDI) and naphthalene diimide (NDI) acceptors was synthesized via Suzuki coupling polymerization. The optical properties of the terpolymers are weighted sums of the constituent parent copolymers and all show strong absorption over the 400 to 700 nm range with optical bandgaps ranging from 1.77 to 1.87 eV, depending on acceptor composition. The copolymers were tested as acceptor materials in bulk heterojunction all‐polymer solar cells using poly[(4,8‐ bis ‐(2‐ethylhexyloxy)‐benzo[1,2‐ b ;4,5‐ b ′]dithiophene)‐2,6‐diyl‐ alt ‐(4‐(2‐ethylhexanoyl)‐thieno[3,4‐ b ]thiophene)‐2,6‐diyl] (PBDTTT‐C) as the donor material. In contrast to the optoelectronic properties, the measured device parameters are not composition dependent, and rather depend solely on the presence of the NDI unit, where the devices containing any amount of NDI perform half as well as those using the parent polymer containing only carbazole and PDI. Overall this is the first example of a one donor–two acceptor random terpolymer system containing perylene diimide (PDI) and naphthalene diimide (NDI) acceptor units, and demonstrates a facile method of tuning polymer optoelectronic properties while minimizing the need for complicated synthetic and purification steps. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2014 , 52 , 3337–3345
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".