Comparing the Electrochemical Response of Nanostructured Electrode Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The electrochemical responses from periodic 6 × 6 arrays of recessed gold nanorings were compared to the 6 × 6 recessed gold nanodiscs arrays. The nanostructured arrays were fabricated by focused ion beam milling and their electrochemical response from a reversible redox pair was obtained. Three-dimensional cyclic voltammetry simulations using COMSOL were performed on 6 × 6 periodic arrays of both recessed nanodiscs and nanorings to elucidate the differences in mass transport between these geometries. Specific mass transport properties near the electroactive surface of the electrodes were elucidated by analyzing the calculated concentration profiles of the redox species. Relative contributions from radial diffusion regimes inside the nanoholes play an important role on the electrochemical response of the recessed nanorings. Arrays of nanodiscs are common in different types of applications, particularly in biosensors. The results presented here suggest that the performance and sensitivity of electrochemical nanosensors can be simply improved by implementing electrodes with a geometry which offer greater current density while keeping the overall footprint of the sensor element constant.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".