MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021596951 · doi:10.1179/cmq.2006.45.4.475

Galvanic Coupling Between Carbon Steel and Stainless Steel Reinforcements

2006· article· en· W2021596951 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Metallurgical Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersMinistère des Transports
KeywordsGalvanic cellMaterials scienceCarbon steelMetallurgyCoupling (piping)Composite materialCarbon fibersCorrosionComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Galvanic corrosion is a potentially major concern associated with the application of stainless steel reinforcement which is in direct (electrical) contact with carbon steel reinforcement in concrete structures. Judicious use of stainless steel rebar in both new construction and rehabilitation of older structures is a viable, cost-effective option for extending service life and reducing maintenance costs. Questions, however, had arisen about the possibility of increased corrosion due to galvanic effects. This paper investigates the galvanic-coupling behaviours of three different types of stainless steel and carbon steel. Tests were performed both in electrochemical cells and with specimens in concrete inside an environmental chamber. The results show that oxygen reduction on stainless steel is the rate-determining factor for galvanic coupling of these two metals. It is much lower than that of passive carbon steel. As a result, the galvanic coupling of stainless steel with carbon steel will not increase the risk of corrosion of carbon steel reinforcement.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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