MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092269576 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31658

Corrosion of Pipeline Steel in the Presence of Alternating Current and the New CP Recommendation

2010· article· en· W2092269576 on OpenAlexafffund
A.Q. Fu, Y. Frank Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsCathodic protectionCorrosionMaterials scienceAlternating currentCurrent densityMetallurgyCurrent (fluid)Pipeline (software)Pipeline transportPitting corrosionElectrodeElectrochemistryEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringVoltageChemistryEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The alternating current (AC)-induced corrosion of a cathodically protected X65 pipeline steel was studied in a high pH, concentrated carbonate/bicarbonate solution. Results demonstrated that the corrosion rate of the steel increases with the AC current density, and AC interference could increase the pitting corrosion of the steel. In the absence of AC interference or at a low AC current density, i.e., 20 A/m2, a cathodic protection (CP) potential of −950 mV(Cu/CuSO4 electrode, CSE), which is 100 mV more cathodic than −850 mV(CSE) recommended by National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), provides a full protection over the steel. When the AC current density is higher than 20 A/m2, the NACE-recommended CP is incapable of protecting the pipeline from corrosion. A new CP standard is thus developed for recommendation to industry to avoid AC corrosion of pipelines.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1Same topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207