MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415735195 · doi:10.1002/celc.201600237

Analyzing Electrochemiluminescence Mechanisms of Thiophene–Triazole–Thiophene Luminophores with In Situ Spectroscopy

2016· article· en· W2415735195 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle S. M. Li, Kenneth Chu, Jacquelyn T. Price, Nathan D. Jones, Zhifeng Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueChemElectroChem · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectrochemiluminescenceThiophenePhotochemistryDifferential pulse voltammetryCyclic voltammetryChemistryLuminophoreDimethylformamideElectrochemistryLuminescenceMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistryElectrodeSolvent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Herein, we report the electrochemical and electrochemiluminescence (ECL) study of thiophene luminophores, 1‐[2,2′]bithiophenyl‐4‐yl‐4‐thiophen‐2‐yl‐1 H ‐[1,2,3]triazole (TTT) and 4‐thiophen‐2‐yl‐1‐thiophen‐3‐yl‐1 H ‐[1,2,3]triazole (TT), in N , N ‐dimethylformamide (DMF). Differential pulse voltammetry was used to determine the oxidation and reduction potentials of the two compounds. TTT and TT in DMF exhibited relatively weak ECL efficiencies following the annihilation mechanism. However, ECL was enhanced with co‐reactants, persulfate, benzoyl peroxide, and tri‐ n ‐propylamine. In these experiments, TTT displayed stronger ECL activity than TT, due to the quasireversible nature of the reduction reactions. Spooling ECL spectroscopy was utilized to gain analytical insight into light‐emission mechanisms. It was shown that whereas these two thiophene compounds could form photoinduced excited monomers, excimers were generated mainly in their co‐reactant ECL paths.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemElectroChemSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207