Layer-by-Layer Assemblies of Coordinative Surface-Confined Electroactive Multilayers: Zigzag vs Orthogonal Molecular Wires with Linear vs Molecular Sponge Type of Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface-anchored coordination-based molecular assemblies (CBMA) are very powerful tools for the design of modern materials. The CBMAs were created using bis-terpyridine–iron coordination chemistry by the alternation of linear or bent bis-terpyridine ligands and Fe(II) metal centers. The coordination of the bent ligand results in the formation of zigzag structures that experience linear growth with each successive deposition step. Interestingly, the deposition of the linear ligand has two distinct steps. During the first four deposition cycles, the thickness and iron uptake (surface coverage) of the multilayer change similarly to ones of the bent ligand based multilayer. However, during the following deposition cycles, the linear ligand based multilayer demonstrates significantly higher growth rate. This unusual behavior might be attributed with the reorganizational transformations leading to a higher organizational level of the assembly. As a result, a part of templating layer molecules, which due to sterical reasons cannot seed a molecular wire growth, and successfully formed molecular wires begin acting as by-holders or molecular sponges able to trap extra metal ions and provide these ions to the system during the next deposition step, thus speeding up the growth of the molecular wires. Indeed, incubation of linear assemblies in solutions of Zn(II) or Cd(II) demonstrates significant trapping abilities for the ions. During electrochemical cycling, both assemblies show high stability, fast response times, and sufficient coloration efficiencies that make them valuable building blocks for the design of novel electrochromic materials.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".