D‐A Polymer with a Donor Backbone ‐ Acceptor‐side‐chain Structure for Organic Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the design, synthesis, and properties of a novel type of donor (D)‐acceptor (A) polymer, poly(3‐(([2,2′:5′,2′′‐terthiophen]‐3‐yl‐5,5“‐diyl)methylene)‐1‐(2‐octyldodecyl)indolin‐2‐one) (PTIBT), with a donor backbone and acceptor side chains (Type II D‐A polymer) as donor for organic solar cells (OSCs) as opposed to the conventional D‐A polymers having both donor and acceptor units on backbone (Type I D‐A polymers). PTIBT having a backbone consisting of thiophene donor units and side chains containing indolin‐2‐one acceptor units was synthesized very conveniently in three steps. This polymer has a high dielectric constant of 7.70, which is beneficial for the exciton diffusion and dissociation in the active blend layer in an OSC. In addition, PTIBT was found to have a low‐lying HOMO energy level of −5.41 eV and a wide band gap of 1.80 eV in comparison to its counterpart Type I D‐A polymer. In organic thin film transistors (OTFTs), PTIBT showed typical p‐type semiconductor performance with hole mobilities of up to 1.81×10−2 cm2 V−1 s−1. When PTIBT and ITIC were used as donor and acceptor to form a blend active layer, the best OSC device showed a JSC of 15.19 mAcm−2, a VOC of 0.66 V, and a fill factor of 0.57, resulting in a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of up to 5.72%.
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 | 0.001 |
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".