AFM Phase Imaging of Electropolymerized Polybithiophene Films at Different Stages of Their Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree of crystallinity in electronically conducting polymers can affect a variety of important properties such as the work function, conductivity, and charge mobility. In our previous work (O'Neil, K. D.; Shaw, B.; Semenikhin, O. A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111, 9253), we studied the distribution of the local conductivity and doping level of conducting polymers with nanometer resolution using Kelvin probe microscopy (KFM) and current-sensing atomic force microscopy (CS-AFM). An unambiguous correlation was found between the polymer morphology, the local oxidation degree (related to the work function), and the local conductivity. One of the possible explanations leading to this behavior was a variation in the crystallinity of polymer films during their nucleation and growth. In this work, direct measurements of the local crystallinity of a conducting polymer, polybithiophene, are performed at different stages of the electropolymerization process using phase imaging atomic force microscopy (AFM). It was found that, at the early stages of the polymer nucleation and growth, the polymer films were predominantly crystalline. At the later stages, the polymer contained both crystalline and amorphous phases, with the crystalline polymer located in the grain cores and the amorphous phase found at the grain periphery. These results are in remarkable agreement with the results of the KFM and CS-AFM measurements reported in our previous work, which relates such inhomogeneity to the presence of both high and low molecular weight polymer fractions in the electropolymerization solution (polydispersity). Furthermore, our data show that the inhomogeneity is not only longitudinal (different crystallinity of grain cores and grain periphery), but also latitudinal (there is a pronounced change in crystallinity between the inner and outer layers of the polymer films).
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".