Donor–Donor Block Copolymers for Ternary Organic Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a fully conjugated diblock copolymer, poly(3-thiohexylthiophene)- block -(3-hexylthiophene) (P3THT- b -P3HT), which is composed of two equally proportioned blocks that have distinct electronic structure and is suitable for testing in a donor–donor–acceptor solar cell. Calculations and optoelectronic characterization demonstrate communication between blocks in silico and in solution. In the solid state, powder X-ray diffraction and atomic force microscopy show that the polymer is semicrystalline and has a distinct morphology (relative to a 1:1 physical blend of its constituent homopolymers), both with and without a fullerene-derivative (PC 71 BM) acceptor. When tested in a device configuration (P3THT- b -P3HT:PC 71 BM), the deep HOMO level of the P3THT block increases the open circuit voltage ( V oc ) to a value that is equal to a P3THT:PC 71 BM control device. This shows that the V oc of an equally proportioned ternary organic solar cell can reach the upper limit of the corresponding binary devices. The block copolymer structure is necessary to maintain favorable active layer morphology. The study shows that donor–donor block copolymers are excellent materials for organic solar cells and that a high V oc can be obtained even when the HOMO level of one of the blocks is high.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".