MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166964036 · doi:10.1002/qua.21030

Singlet excitation energies of thiophene derivatives of fluorene: TD‐DFT study

2006· article· en· W2166964036 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhijun Gong, Jolanta B. Lagowski

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsDensity functional theorySinglet stateGround stateExcited stateThiopheneFluoreneChemistryExcitationMolecular orbitalMolecular physicsAtomic physicsComputational chemistryMoleculePolymerPhysicsQuantum mechanicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fluorene‐thiophene (FT)‐based oligomers and polymers and their derivatives are good candidates for organic blue light‐emitting diodes. In this work, the intrinsic properties of the ground and excited states of FT monomer and its derivatives are studied. The ground‐state optimized structures and energies are obtained using molecular orbital theory and density functional theory (DFT). The ground‐state potential energy curves or surfaces of FT and its derivatives are also obtained. All derivatives are nonplanar in their electronic ground states. The character and energy of the first 20 singlet–singlet electronic transitions are investigated by applying the time‐dependent density functional theory (TD‐DFT) approximations to the correspondingly optimized ground‐state geometries. The lowest singlet state is studied with the configuration interaction (singles) approach (CIS). Excitation energies are red shifted when the FT unit or its derivatives are extended longitudinally. CIS results suggest geometry relaxation in the first singlet excited state. When available, a comparison is made with experimental results. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Quantum ChemistrySame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207