Graphene versus concentrated aqueous electrolytes: the role of the electrochemical double layer in determining the screening length of an electrolyte
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
Abstract Understanding the performance of graphene devices in contact with highly concentrated aqueous electrolytes is key to integrating graphene into next-generation devices operating in sea water environments, biosensors, and high-density energy production/storage units. Despite significant efforts toward interpreting the structure of the electrochemical double layer at high concentrations, the interface between graphene-based materials and concentrated aqueous solutions has remained vaguely described. In this study, we demonstrate the use of graphene-based chemiresistors as a technique to indirectly quantify the experimental screening length of concentrated electrolytes that could clarify the interpretation of electrochemical measurements conducted at low ionic strength. We report a breakdown of the Debye–Hückel theory in the proximity of graphene surfaces at lower concentrations (10–50 mM) than previously reported for other systems, depending on cation size, dissolved oxygen concentration, and degree of graphene defectivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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