Comparison of ground and excited state polarizabilities of thiophene, cyclopentadiene, and fulvene oligomers and their cyano substituted derivatives—<i>Ab initio</i> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ab Initio study of the ground and excited state polarizabilities of thiophene, fulvene, and cyclopentadiene based conducting oligomers and their cyano derivatives have been performed using the restricted Hartree–Fock (RHF) and the configuration interaction singles (CIS) approaches, respectively, with 3‐21G* basis set. For comparison purposes, for some small oligomers (monomers and dimers), higher basis sets (6‐31G*, 6‐31+G*, aug‐cc‐pVTZ) were also employed in the computations of polarizabilities. The trends in polarizability as a function of oligomer length were investigated. For all systems, the RHF polarizability increases as n1.2–1.3 as n gets larger and the CIS polarizability increases as n1.4–1.6 for n less than seven or eight rings and then increases approximately linearly with n for larger n. For the thiophene based systems the dependence of the polarizability on bond length alternation (BLA) along the backbone of the oligomers was also investigated using the RHF, density functional (DFT), and CIS theories (with 3‐21G* basis set). For thiophene dimer, we also performed RHF/aug‐cc‐pVTZ calculations of polarizabilities versus BLA. We found that the polarizability is largest when BLA is near zero (for both ground and excited states), which correlates with the lowest excitation energy. Comparison with experimental results has been made where possible. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 45: 1983–1995, 2007
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".