Mechanisms of solid-state nanopore enlargement under electrical stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a thorough exploration of nanopore growth under electrical stress in electrolyte solution, and demonstrate that despite their superficial similarities, nanopore formation by controlled breakdown (CBD) and nanopore growth under moderate voltage stress are fundamentally different processes. In particular, we demonstrate that unlike the CBD process, nanopore growth is primarily driven by the level of ionic current passing through the nanopore, rather than the strength of the electric field generating the current, and that enlargement has a much weaker pH dependence than does CBD pore formation. In combination with other works in the field, our results suggest that despite clear current-dependence, Joule heating is unlikely to be the main driver of pore growth during electrical stress, pointing instead toward electrochemical dissolution of membrane material along the pore walls. While the chemistry underlying the growth process remains unclear, the dependence of growth rate on current allows decoupling of the pore enlargement mechanism from the possibility of forming additional nanopores during the growth process, providing a practical method by which to rapidly enlarge a nanopore without risking opening a second nanopore.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".