MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136963507 · doi:10.3390/molecules26061780

The TDDFT Excitation Energies of the BODIPYs; The DFT and TDDFT Challenge Continues

2021· article· en· W3136963507 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrien Schlachter, Alexandre Fleury, Kevin Tanner, Armand Soldera, Benoît Habermeyer, Roger Guilard, Pierre D. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence and Fluorescent Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsTime-dependent density functional theoryDensity functional theoryBODIPYExcitationExcited stateSinglet stateComputational chemistrySeries (stratigraphy)MoleculeMaterials scienceChemistryChemical physicsMolecular physicsAtomic physicsPhysicsFluorescenceQuantum mechanicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The derivatives of 4,4-difluoro-4-bora-3a,4a-diaza-s-indacene (BODIPY) are pivotal ingredients for a large number of functional, stimuli-responsive materials and therapeutic molecules based on their photophysical properties, and there is a urgent need to understand and predict their optical traits prior to investing a large amount of resources in preparing them. Density functional theory (DFT) and time-dependent DFT (TDDFT) computations were performed to calculate the excitation energies of the lowest-energy singlet excited state of a large series of common BODIPY derivatives employing various functional aiming at the best possible combination providing the least deviations from the experimental values. Using the common "fudge" correction, a series of combinations was investigated, and a methodology is proposed offering equal or better performances than what is reported in the literature.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicLuminescence and Fluorescent MaterialsFrench-language works237,207