Evaluation of nanopores as candidates for electronic analyte detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to increase throughput and decrease the cost of electrophoretic separation of DNA and proteins, various groups are developing highly parallel, miniaturized separation devices based on capillaries etched into silicon, glass or plastic substrates. To date, these miniaturized devices have relied on optical detectors, thus placing a lower limit on instrument size, and complicating the incorporation of an entire DNA analyzer instrument on a chip. To address this limitation, we are evaluating nanopores as candidate Coulter counters for purely electronic detection of analytes in miniaturized electrophoresis and similar separation devices. To establish feasibility of this detection scheme, we have investigated the detection sensitivity of a nanopore sensor through experiments with the alpha-hemolysin (alpha-HL) ion channel, and through a Monte Carlo (MC) model of polymer capture rate with a cylindrical nanopore under an applied voltage. Experimental and model results are extrapolated to predict the capture rate of synthetic pores operating at higher voltages than presently achievable with protein pores.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it