CuPc:C<sub>60</sub> nanocomposite: A pathway to control organic microstructure and phase transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth and thermal behavior of copper‐phthalocyanine (CuPc) and fullerene (C60) organic nanocomposite thin films, grown on SiO2 and Cu(111) surfaces, have been studied using scanning electron microscopy, X‐ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). It is found that the growth of pure CuPc organic thin films follows an island‐type growth mode. The island formation is found to be dramatically suppressed by the inclusion of C60 during deposition. XRD and STM studies reveal that the CuPc molecular packing is altered upon C60 inclusion, producing disordered CuPc–C60 interfaces. The ordered molecular stacking of CuPc is found to be disrupted completely when C60 concentration reaches 30 wt.%. The thermal stability of the CuPc thin film has been significantly improved upon C60 inclusion. It is suggested that the molecular diffusion kinetics rather than thermodynamics are responsible for the improved stability.
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".