MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088654776 · doi:10.1115/imece2012-89407

The Effect of Creating Different Size Surface Patterns on Corrosion Properties of Nickel

2012· article· en· W2088654776 on OpenAlexaff
Alisina Toloei, Vesselin Stoilov, Derek O. Northwood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionNickelMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeMetallurgyEnergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most common methods of decreasing the corrosion rate of metals use inhibitors, chemicals, coatings and surface modifiers. In this study a new method has been used to combat corrosion. This new approach is based on creating specific patterns on nickel surface. A pattern of holes with different diameters (D) and inter-hole spacings (L) were created through a laser ablation method on nickel sheet samples. Corrosion tests were carried out in a 0.5M H2SO4 solution. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed in order to compare the appearance of the samples before and after corrosion tests. Energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) technique showed chemical composition of materials inside and outside of the holes before and after the corrosion tests. As a result of the surface patterning a significant improvement of protective properties of nickel surface has been achieved. All patterned surfaces showed better corrosion resistance compared to the polished reference samples. In addition, it has been shown that for a few specific patterns the corrosion resistance can be increased by orders of magnitude compared to the polished reference samples.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207