MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616320662 · doi:10.1021/jacs.7b02563

Robust Bipolar Light Emission and Charge Transport in Symmetric Molecular Junctions

2017· article· en· W2616320662 on OpenAlexafffund
Ushula M. Tefashe, Quyen Van Nguyen, Frédéric Lafolet, Jean Lacroix, Richard L. McCreery

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMolecular Junctions and Nanostructures
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversity of AlbertaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsChemistryLight emissionQuantum tunnellingOligomerMolecular wireElectronElectron transport chainElectric fieldMolecular electronicsChemical physicsMolecular physicsOptoelectronicsMoleculeMaterials sciencePolymer chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular junctions consisting of a Ru(bpy) 3 oligomer between conducting carbon contacts exhibit an exponential dependence of junction current on molecular layer thickness ( d ) similar to that observed for other aromatic devices when d < 4 nm. However, when d > 4 nm, a change in transport mechanism occurs which coincides with light emission in the range of 600–900 nm. Unlike light emission from electrochemical cells or solid-state films containing Ru(bpy) 3, emission is bipolar, occurs in vacuum, has rapid rise time (<5 ms), and persists for >10 h. Light emission directly indicates simultaneous hole and electron injection and transport, possibly resonant due to the high electric field present (>3 MV/cm). Transport differs fundamentally from previous tunneling and hopping mechanisms and is a clear “molecular signature” relating molecular structure to electronic behavior.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations63
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Chemical SocietySame topicMolecular Junctions and NanostructuresFrench-language works237,207