Evaluating Thiophene Electron‐Donor Layers for the Rapid Assessment of Boron Subphthalocyanines as Electron Acceptors in Organic Photovoltaics: Solution or Vacuum Deposition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we consider the choice of a standard electron-donating material to be paired with boron subphthalocyanines (BsubPcs) to rapidly assess the viability of new BsubPc derivatives as electron-accepting materials within organic photovoltaic devices (OPVs). Specifically, we evaluate the effectiveness of solution-cast poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl) (P3HT) as an electron donor paired with BsubPc derivatives relative to vacuum-deposited sexithiophene (α-6T). By using fullerene (C60 ), boron subphthalocyanine chloride (Cl-BsubPc), and hexachloro boron subphthalocyanine chloride (Cl-Cl6 BsubPc) as electron acceptors, we find that devices made with α-6T outperform those with P3HT. However, the two thiophene-based materials show the same performance trends. Given the preservation of these trends, we can recommend either option for assessing the potential of new BsubPc derivatives; P3HT as a solution-cast electron-donor layer or α-6T as a vacuum-deposited alternative.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".