MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312217227 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2022.18.15

Ambipolar Charge Transport of PCNTC-O and PCNTC-R Cocrystals Obtained Under 1:2 and 1:1 Ratios of Donor and Acceptor

2022· article· en· W4312217227 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junle Ren, Zhelin Ding, Yuyao Li, Qiqi Mu, Qiguang Shen, Shoufeng Zhang, Li Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOrganic Electronics and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAmbipolar diffusionAcceptorOrganic semiconductorCharge (physics)AcrylonitrileElectron mobilityElectron acceptorChemistryMaterials scienceCharge carrierComputational chemistryPhysical chemistryCrystallographyElectronPhotochemistryOrganic chemistryOptoelectronicsPhysicsPolymerCondensed matter physicsCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficiency of microelectronic devices depends greatly on the charge transport performance of organic semiconductors. The purpose of this work is to analyze the effect of donor-acceptor (D-A) cocrystals on the charge transport characteristics of organic semiconductors using the Marcus theory of electron transfer combined with kinetic Monte Carlo simulations. For two different cocrystals, sesquikis (benzene-1,2,4,5-tetracarbonitrile) 2-(1,3-benzothiazol-2-yl)-3-(pyren-1-yl)prop-2-eneni-trile(PCNTC-O) and ben-zene-1,2,4,5-tetracarbonitrile 2-(1,3-benzothiazol-2-yl)-3-(pyren-1-yl)pr-op-2-enenitrile(PCNTC-R) cocrystals, were investigated using 2-(benzo[d]-thiazol-2-yl)-3-(pyren-1-yl)acrylonitrile (Py-BZTCN) as the donor and 1,2,4,5-tetracyanobenzene (TCNB) as the acceptor mixed at 1:2 and 1:1 ratios, respectively. According to our calculations, PCNTC-O and PCNTC-R both exhibit bipolar charge transport behaviour with mobilities electron/hole attaining 0.0104/0.1252 and 0.0241/0.0598 cm2/Vs, respectively.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicOrganic Electronics and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207