MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901324430 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v10n4p83

Optical, Photoelectrochemical and Impedance Studies on Poly 3,3’ Dibromo, 2,2’ Bithiophene: Effect of Bromine as a Substituent at C-3 Position in 2,2’ Bithiophene Molecules

2018· article· en· W2901324430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kasem K. Kasem, Houria Sadou, Anthony W. Jeffers

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistrySubstituentElectrochromismAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Band gapPhotochemistryElectrodePhysical chemistryStereochemistryOrganic chemistryOptoelectronicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thin films of poly 3, 3’ dibromo, 2,2’ biththiophene (PDBrBTh) and poly 2,2’ biththiophene (PBTh) on fluorine doped tin oxide electrode (FTO) were subjected to optical, electrochemical and impedance studies in various aqueous electrolytes. Both polymers showed electrochromic properties, where the neutral film at -1.0 V vs Ag/AgCl shows red color, and the oxidized (doped) film at positive potentials shows blue color. Optical studies indicated that PDBrBTh showed a greater optical band gap than that of PBTh. Our studies also showed that the presence of bromine as a substituent at the C-3 position of the thiophene ring causes a greater ionization potential (IP) than PBTh. PDBrBTh also shows closer values of refractive index(n), and real (εr,) and imaginary (εi) dielectric constants to that of PBTh at photon energies between 2.0eV and 3.0 eV. At lower photon energy PDBrBTh showed lower optical conductivity than Br-free PBTh. Study also indicated that PDBrBTh is much less photoactive that PBTh. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopic studies (EIS) revealed that PDBrBTh possesses less relaxation time, and less double layer capacitance (Cdl) in dark and under illumination.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ChemistrySame topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207