Solvent Effects on the UV–vis Absorption and Emission of Optoelectronic Coumarins: a Comparison of Three Empirical Solvatochromic Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coumarins often function in the solution phase for a diverse range of optoelectronic applications. The associated solvent effects on the UV–vis absorption and/or fluorescence spectral shifts of coumarins need to be understood in order that their photochemistry can be controlled. To this end, three different empirical solvatochromic models are assessed against 13 coumarins. The two generalized solvent scales developed by Catalán and co-workers demonstrate comparable performance to the popular Taft–Kamlet solvatochromic comparison method. A combinatorial approach to determine the best-fit equations in all of the empirical models is applied; this involves both statistical best-fits and the physical validation of the resulting parameters, based on the molecular structures of solvents and solutes and their corresponding interactions. The findings of this approach are used to extract useful information about different aspects of solvent effects on the solvatochromism of coumarins.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".