MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2087362654 · doi:10.1179/174327809x456996

Cellular automaton model for simulation of metastable pitting

2010· article· en· W2087362654 on OpenAlexaff
L Li, Xiaogang Li, Chaofang Dong, Y. Frank Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCorrosion Engineering Science and Technology The International Journal of Corrosion Processes and Corrosion Control · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCellular automatonMetastabilityPitting corrosionMaterials scienceDiffusionCurrent densityRange (aeronautics)Work (physics)MetallurgyCorrosionThermodynamicsMechanicsChemistryComposite materialPhysicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a new simulation method, cellular automata (CA) approach had been used in a number of areas, including electrochemistry and corrosion science research. In this work, a probability CA model was developed to simulate the growth of metastable pits. The simulation imaged the morphology of the pit and calculated the time dependences of pitting current and pitting current density. Results demonstrated that the CA approach is capable of simulating corrosion pit in terms of the pit morphology and pit growth kinetics. During growth of a hemispherical metastable pit controlled by diffusion, the time dependence of pitting current follows I = f(t2) law. Furthermore, it is determined that, for the simulation results to be consistent with the experimental results, an optimal range for variable d should be 0·1–0·25.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorrosion Engineering Science and Technology The International Journal of Corrosion Processes and Corrosion Control→Same topicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals→French-language works237,207→