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 OpenAlex
A.Q. Fu, Y. Frank Cheng

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

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
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