MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411378092 · doi:10.1002/asia.202500694

Radical and Redox Forms of Pyridyl Appended MB‐DIPYs

2025· article· en· W4411378092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dijo Prasannan, Yuriy V. Zatsikha, Victor N. Nemykin

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry - An Asian Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicConducting polymers and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRedoxChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We discuss the synthesis and properties of pyridine‐appended nickel(II) complex of “Manitoba dipyrromethene” (Ni II (MB‐DIPY)), which is stable radical at ambient conditions. The Ni II (MB‐DIPY), 6 • shows absorption at ∼1300 nm and a g‐value of ∼2.00 in EPR. The redox features of Ni II (MB‐DIPY) were studied by electro‐ and spectroelectrochemistry. The reduced form, 6 ‐ , has an intense NIR absorption and a broad spectrum in the visible region, making this compound a prospective non‐fullerene acceptor for light‐harvesting. The axial coordination and photophysical properties of the supramolecular dyad formed between pyridine‐appended Ni II (MB‐DIPY) with zinc 5,10,15,20‐tetrakis‐(pentafluorophenyl)porphyrin (TPP F20 Zn) were also studied. Ni II (MB‐DIPY) 6 • failed to interact with TPP F20 Zn. However, reduced Ni II (MB‐DIPY) in its anionic form, 6 ‐ , self‐assembles and forms a donor‐acceptor dyad with TPP F20 Zn with a binding constant of K a = 1.13 × 10 2 M −1 and fluorescence quenching constant of K SV = 1.31 × 10 3 M −1 . This work represents the first report on the potential of MB‐DIPYs to self‐assemble and form a donor‐acceptor type supramolecular dyad with TPP F20 Zn. This study explored the potential of the MB‐DIPYs to act as a non‐fullerene acceptor in light‐harvesting supramolecular donor‐acceptor systems formed via non‐covalent interactions.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry - An Asian JournalSame topicConducting polymers and applicationsFrench-language works237,207