MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181244674 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c01552

Room Temperature Phosphorescence vs Triplet–Triplet Annihilation in N-Substituted Acridone Solids

2021· article· en· W3181244674 on OpenAlexafffund
Ehsan Hamzehpoor, Cory Ruchlin, Yuze Tao, Jorge Ramos-Sánchez, Hatem M. Titi, Gonzalo Cosa, Dmitrii F. Perepichka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence and Fluorescent Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcridonePhosphorescenceStackingAntiparallel (mathematics)Excited statePhotochemistrySubstituentSteric effectsAnnihilationChemistryFluorescenceTriplet stateCarbazoleMaterials scienceCrystallographyMoleculeStereochemistryOrganic chemistryAtomic physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organic room temperature phosphorescent (ORTP) compounds have recently emerged as a promising class of emissive materials with a multitude of potential applications. However, the number of building blocks that give rise to efficient ORTP materials is still limited, and the rules for engineering phosphorescent properties in organic solids are not well understood. Here, we report ORTP in a series of N-substituted acridone derivatives with electron-donating, electron-withdrawing, and sterically bulky substituents. X-ray crystallography shows that the solid-state packing varies progressively between coparallel and antiparallel π-stacking and separated π-dimers, depending on the size of the substituent. The detailed photophysical studies supported by DFT calculations reveal complex dynamics of singlet and triplet excited states, depending on the electronic effects of substituents and solid-state packing. The programmable molecular packing provides a lever to control the triplet–triplet annihilation that is manifested as delayed fluorescence in acridone derivatives with continuous (both parallel and antiparallel) π-stacking.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicLuminescence and Fluorescent MaterialsFrench-language works237,207