MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of corrosion degradation using electrochemical noise (EN): review of signal processing methods for identifying corrosion forms

2015· article· en· W2149978111 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCorrosion Engineering Science and Technology The International Journal of Corrosion Processes and Corrosion Control · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrochemical noiseCorrosionMaterials scienceTime domainCorrosion monitoringFrequency domainElectrochemistrySIGNAL (programming language)Instrumentation (computer programming)Noise (video)Degradation (telecommunications)Signal processingMetallurgyElectrodeComputer scienceElectronic engineeringEngineeringChemistryDigital signal processingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrochemical noise (EN), as one of the most promising in situ electrochemical methods in corrosion and electrochemical science, has been developing rapidly in recent years with the advancements in instrumentation and signal processing methods. One advantage of EN is its application in long-term or early stage corrosion process monitoring because it instantly detects corrosion rate and corrosion forms. Investigators have applied various mathematical methods to extract characteristic parameters from EN. In this paper, identifying corrosion forms using parameters obtained from time domain, frequency domain and time–frequency domain is reviewed, and the correlation between parameters and corrosion forms is discussed. Finally, other in situ techniques are recommended to be employed synchronously with EN measurement in order to obtain reliable analyses.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · 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