MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W19226646 · doi:10.5006/c2004-04447

Analyzing Electrochemical Noise Data with Time-Domain Techniques

2004· article· en· W19226646 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Klassen, P.R. Roberge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrochemical noiseNoise (video)Computer scienceTime domainElectrochemistryMaterials scienceElectronic engineeringElectrodeEngineeringChemistryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article introduces two techniques for characterizing individual transients in electrochemical noise (EN) data in the time domain. These approaches extract information from only electrochemical transients in EN data, i.e. where current and potential are correlated. An algorithm is introduced for identifying transients based on locating records where both the current and potential derivatives are simultaneously zero. A measure of the intensity of the transient was obtained from the current amplitude near the transient apex. A measure of the uniform corrosion rate of the less active electrode during a transient was obtained from the ratio of differences in potential and current during a single transient. The corrosion rates thus obtained appear to have a lognormal distribution. These techniques were illustrated from laboratory measurements for three systems, i.e. carbon steel (UNS G10100) electrodes in saline and two magnesium alloys, AZ91D (UNS M11916) and ZA1040 (experimental alloy), in saline/magnesium hydroxide solutions. This approach seems to be readily transportable to a field monitoring system as long as the sampling frequency is high enough and there is a processor available to convert raw data as it is collected and store only the processed results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207