Amorphous Poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) Thin Films by Vacuum Electrospray Deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vacuum electrospray deposition is a promising technique to deposit solvent-free films of polymers or (macro)molecules that can otherwise be processed only in solution, owing to their thermal fragility. However, the different environments of vacuum and solvent during film growth can have severe effects on the resulting thin-film morphology and structure. Here, we investigate the thin-film growth of the generally semicrystalline conjugated polymer poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl) (P3HT) by vacuum electrospray deposition and juxtapose it with films conventionally grown from solution. We find that, in contrast to the solution-processed films, those from electrospray deposition appear to be entirely amorphous, which we deduce from amorphous scattering in synchrotron grazing-incidence X-ray diffraction, where their diffraction signature resembles that of dropcast films in situ heated close to their melting point. While numerous experimental approaches exist to increase structural order in thin films, deliberately establishing amorphous films is a challenge for semicrystalline materials. Based on our present example of P3HT, vacuum electrospray deposition, therefore, emerges as a thin-film preparation technique that is very well-suited to readily suppress crystallization, which can be of high value for disentangling experimental data obtained for semicrystalline materials.
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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".