MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143790036 · doi:10.5006/1.3280899

A Review of Corrosion of Titanium Grade 7 and Other Titanium Alloys in Nuclear Waste Repository Environments

2005· review· en· W2143790036 on OpenAlexaff
Fuan Hua, K. Mon, Pasu Pasupathi, G. Gordon, David W. Shoesmith

Bibliographic record

VenueCORROSION · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTitaniumCorrosionMetallurgyMaterials scienceRadioactive wasteTitanium alloyWaste managementEngineeringAlloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Titanium alloy degradation modes are reviewed in relation to their performance in repository environments. General corrosion, localized corrosion, stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen-induced cracking, microbiologically influenced corrosion, and radiation-assisted corrosion of Ti alloys are considered. With respect to the Ti Grade 7 drip shields selected for emplacement in the repository at Yucca Mountain, general corrosion, hydrogen-induced cracking, and radiation-assisted corrosion either do not initiate or propagate sufficiently fast over a 10,000-year time frame in likely repository environments to cause penetration of the drip shield. Stress corrosion cracking (in the absence of disruptive events) is of no consequence to barrier performance; and localized corrosion and microbiologically influenced corrosion are not expected to occur. To facilitate the discussion, Ti Grades 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 24 are included in this review.

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)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCORROSIONSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207