MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ab initio study of ladder-type polymers polythiophene and polypyrrole

2006· preprint· en· W2952513682 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Pesant, P Boulanger, Michel Côté, Matthias Ernzerhof

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsPolythiophenePolypyrroleThiopheneAb initioPolymerMaterials sciencePyrroleConductive polymerBand gapCharge densityComputational chemistryPolymer chemistryChemical physicsChemistryOrganic chemistryPolymerizationOptoelectronicsComposite materialPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an \textit{ab initio} study of four polymers, polythiophene, polypyrrole, ladder-type polythiophene, and ladder-type polypyrrole. Upon an analysis of the variation of the band gap when comparing the unconstrained and the ladder-type polymers, a discrepancy was found between the thiophene and the pyrrole polymer families. For polythiophene, the ladder-type polymer has a larger gap than the unconstrained polymer whereas the opposite is found for the pyrrole polymers. The structural properties and the charge densities using the Bader charge analysis of these four compounds are investigated. The different band gap behaviors in thiophene and pyrrole polymers can be explained in terms of the competition between the bond length alternation and the effect of the charge density in the carbon backbone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.129 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207