Optimization of Solubility, Film Morphology and Photodetector Performance by Molecular Side‐Chain Engineering of Low‐Bandgap Thienothiadiazole‐Based Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of donor–acceptor (D‐A) type low‐bandgap polymers containing the terthiophene and thieno[3,4‐b]thiadiazole units in the main chain but different numbers of identical side chains are designed and synthesized in order to study the effect of side chain on the polymer properties and optimize the performance of polymer photodetectors. Variation in the side chain content can influence the polymer solubility, molecular packing, and film morphology, which in turn affects the photodetector performance, particularly with regard to the photoresponsivity and dark current. X‐ray diffraction patterns indicate that molecular ordering increases with more side chains. Atomic force microscopy shows that appropriate morphology of the active layer in the polymer photodetector is necessary for high photocurrent and low dark current. Using BCP as a hole blocking layer (10 nm), the photodetector based on P4 exhibits the optimized performance with specific detectivity of 1.4 × 1012 Jones at 800 nm, which is among the best reported values for polymer photodetectors and even comparable to that of a silicon photodetector.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".