MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W212175950 · doi:10.5006/c2010-10144

Degradations of Mechanical Properties in Surface Layer and Erosion Resistance of Carbon Steel in Slurries with Different pH and Chemical Compositions

2010· article· en· W212175950 on OpenAlexaff
Baotong Lu, Ke Wang, Xuemei Wan, Jing‐Li Luo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlurryLayer (electronics)Materials scienceCarbon fibersErosionCorrosionCarbon steelMetallurgySurface layerComposite materialGeologyComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Effects of anodic dissolution in corrosive slurries with different chemical compositions and pHs on the in-situ surface mechanical properties and slurry erosion resistance of carbon steel are investigated. The experimental measurements indicate that the materials loss rate due to corrosion-enhanced erosion increases linearly with the logarithm of anodic current density. The in-situ nanoindentation shows that the presence of anodic current on surface reduces the surface hardness. Under the galvanostatic control, the erosion rates in acidic slurries are much higher than those in the neutral and alkaline slurries. The exposure to the acidic solutions can also lead to a larger in-situ surface hardness reduction than those than those observed in neutral and alkaline solutions. In the neutral and alkaline corrosive media, the erosion rates and the in-situ surface hardness degradation are hardly affected by the chemical composition of aqueous media. The agreement in the high-to-low order of the in-situ surface hardness and the erosion wastage under the galvanostatic control suggests the corrosion-induced surface mechanical property degradation may play a role in the mechanism of corrosion-enhanced erosion.

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 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 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207