Synthesis of polymeric organic semiconductors using semifluorinated polymer precursors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The transesterification of 1,1,1,3,3,3‐hexafluoroisopropyl acrylate (HFIPA) homopolymers and block copolymers with methyl acrylate (MA) or n‐butyl acrylate (n‐BuA) were investigated for the efficient synthesis of p‐type and n‐type organic semiconductor acrylates. HFIPA, MA, and n‐BuA are readily prepared in a one‐pot synthesis by Cu(0) reversible deactivation radical polymerization in high yield with low dispersity to give poly(HFIPA)100, PMA100‐b‐poly(HFIPA)x, and PnBuA100‐b‐poly(HFIPA)x (x = 100, 50,25). The transesterification of poly(HFIPA)100 was also studied using 19F NMR spectroscopy. Based on this method, a series of eight homopolymers and three copolymers based on semiconductor motifs commonly found in organic light‐emitting diodes, organic thin‐film transistors, and organic photovoltaics were synthesized with narrow dispersity and conversions up to 99%. These experiments demonstrate that poly(HFIPA) can provide a useful building block in the synthesis of organic electronic materials, providing a simpler route to complex materials which may be challenging to access directly via controlled radical polymerization. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2018, 56, 2183–2191
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".