MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330661865 · doi:10.1166/jnn.2001.062

Time-Resolved Luminescence in Conducting Polymer/Antidot Nanocomposites

2001· article· en· W2330661865 on OpenAlexaff
L. Bakueva, S. F. Musikhin, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLuminescencePolymerNanocompositePhotoluminescenceNanocrystalPhenyleneConjugated systemChemical engineeringNanotechnologyComposite materialOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report modification of the structure and properties of conjugated polymers through controlled embedding wide-gap nanocrystals (antidots) within the polymer matrix. Investigations were carried out by means of stationary and time-resolved photoluminescence. Antidots strongly modify the luminescence spectrum of poly(p-phenylene vinylene) but have almost no influence on the spectrum of poly(2-(6-cyano-6'-methylheptyloxy)-1, 4-phenylene. We explain this observation with respect to the different chain structure and electron density distribution in these two materials. The temporal evolution of luminescence spectra in polymer/antidot composites contains a series of characteristic times. The shortest of these (0.35-0.6 ns) are independent of antidot material and characterize processes in the polymer matrix. Larger times considerably exceeding 1 ns are composition-sensitive and attributable to carrier capture by nanocrystals. The qualitative character of the modification of luminescence spectra associated with the inclusion of antidots depends strongly on the characteristics of the polymer matrices and more weakly on the antidot material. This suggests that the predominant effect of the nanocrystals relates to the modification of the matrix near the polymer-inorganic interface.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nanoscience and NanotechnologySame topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207