MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307574696 · doi:10.1002/macp.202200294

A Phenylene‐Based Light‐Emitting Polymer: Atums Green

2022· article· en· W4307574696 on OpenAlexaff
Tanisha Mehreen, Sergey I. Vagin, Vishal Kumar, Xiaoyuan Liu, Lukas Eylert, Bernhard Rieger, A. Meldrum

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Chemistry and Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLuminescence and Fluorescent Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLasing thresholdPolymerPhotobleachingPhenylenePhotochemistryPhotoluminescencePolymer chemistryConjugated systemPolymerizationGel permeation chromatographyPolystyreneFluorescenceChemistryOptoelectronicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work synthesizes a green‐fluorescent conjugated polymer and performs basic photophysical characterization of this new material. Atums Green [1] is synthesized by a Suzuki cross‐coupling polymerization reaction between isostructural dibromo and diboronic acid monomers and is structurally characterized by nuclear magnetic resonance and gel permeation chromatography. The polymer consists of an alkoxy‐substituted 1,4‐bis((E)‐styryl)benzene repeating unit with molecular weight up to M n = 50 kDa relative to polystyrene. Atums Green shows a strong green fluorescence maximized at ≈500 nm in chloroform and tetrahydrofuran solutions, with an absolute quantum efficiency as high as 98%. The photobleaching dynamics and time‐resolved photoluminescence (TRPL) are measured both in solutions and in solid films. Finally, solution‐based lasing is demonstrated in a bulk lasing cavity and in a cylindrical microcavity. Lasing emission is readily achieved in both formats, indicating that Atums Green has excellent emission characteristics, and further suggesting that it may present a viable green‐emitting conjugated polymer materials system for light emission applications.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacromolecular Chemistry and PhysicsSame topicLuminescence and Fluorescent MaterialsFrench-language works237,207