Ambipolar Organic Field‐Effect Transistors from Cross‐Conjugated Aromatic Quaterthiophenes; Comparisons with Quinoidal Parent Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This contribution presents an electrochemical, Raman spectroscopic, and theoretical study probing the differences in molecular and electronic structure of two quinoidal oligothiophenes (3′,4′‐dibutyl‐5,5″‐bis(dicyanomethylene)‐5,5″‐dihydro‐2,2′:5′,2″‐terthiophene and 5,5′‐bis(dicyanomethylene)‐3‐hexyl‐2,5‐dihydro‐4,4′‐dihexyl‐2,2′,5,5′‐tetrahydro‐tetrathiophene) with terminal tetracyanomethylene functionalization and aromatic oligothiophenes where acceptor moieties are positioned at lateral positions along the conjugated chain (6,6′‐dibutylsulfanyl‐[2,2′‐bi‐[4‐dicyanovinylene‐4H‐cyclopenta[2,1‐b:3,4‐b′]dithiophene]). In this way, the consequences of linear and cross conjugation are compared and contrasted. From this analysis, it is apparent that organic field‐effect transistors fabricated with cross‐conjugated tetrathiophene semiconductors should combine the benefits of an electron‐donor aromatic chain with strongly electron‐accepting tetracyanomethylene substituents. The corresponding organic field‐effect transistors exhibit ambipolar transport with rather similar hole and electron mobilities. Moreover, n‐channel conduction is enhanced to yield one of the highest electron mobilities found to date for this type of material.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".