Epoxy-Coated Rebar Performance in the Deck of the Perley Bridge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Perley Bridge spans the Ottawa River between the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. During a 1979 rehabilitation project, epoxy-coated rebar (ECR) was installed in an effort to extend the service life of span 17. External signs of corrosion were observed in the west lane of span 17 as early as 1985, but none were observed in the east lane. The cover concrete on the east lane was almost twice that of the west lane. A wide variety of techniques were used to evaluate the difference between slabs cut from the east and west lanes. The most useful techniques were potential mapping, chloride profiling, petrographic analyses, adhesion testing, epoxy damage, analyses of reinforcing bar-concrete cross-sections, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy measurements of epoxy properties. Cover depth and chloride contamination were the most significant factors affecting damage to the rebar. Based on these techniques, results showed that the epoxy coating used on the west lane of the Perley Bridge deck in span 17 provided only 1 to 4 years of additional corrosion protection over bare rebar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".