Theoretical design and optoelectronic properties of novel donor–acceptor–donor thieno[3,4-b]pyrazine derivatives for organic solar cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels and the growing demand for energy, it has become necessary to research new renewable energy sources for high-performance organic photovoltaic materials. In this context, a series of new donor–acceptor–donor compounds, based on the thieno[3,4-b]pyrazine core unit, have been designed and theoretically investigated. Donor moieties were introduced to design novel derivatives aimed at enhancing both optical absorption and charge transport properties, denoted respectively as: PTH, PTH4PF, PTH4POME, and PTHCBZ. The geometric, electronic, optical and photovoltaic characteristics of these molecular structures have been studied in depth through extensive theoretical studies. Exhibited energy gap (EH-L =EHOMO - ELUMO) ranging from 2.48 to 2.32 eV, with absorption wavelengths (λabs) between 552 and 589 nm. The Voc obtained values ranged from 0.77 to 0.99 V, while the LHE values varied between 0.59 and 0.87. This study highlights the impact of structural modifications on the electronic and photovoltaic properties of organic molecules, providing valuable guidance for the experimental design of high-efficiency organic solar cells.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".