Limitations of the Förster Description of Singlet Exciton Migration: The Illustrative Example of Energy Transfer to Ketonic Defects in Ladder‐type Poly(<i>para‐</i>phenylenes)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Energy‐transfer processes in phenylene‐based materials are studied via two different approaches: i) the original Förster model, which relies on a simple point‐dipole approximation; and ii) an improved Förster model accounting for an atomistic description of the interacting chromophores. Here, to illustrate the impact of excited‐state localization and the failure of the point‐dipole approximation, we consider a simple model system which consists of two interacting chains, the first a pristine ladder‐type poly( para ‐phenylene) (LPPP) chain and the second an LPPP‐chain bearing a ketonic defect. The latter chain displays both localized electronic excitations close to the ketonic sites as well as excited states that are delocalized over the whole conjugated chain. Singlet hopping rates have been computed for energy transfer pathways involving these two types of excitations. A generalized Förster critical distance is introduced to account for the errors associated with averaging out the actual molecular structures in the original Förster model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".