Factors Affecting the Performance and Applicability of SrTiO<sub>3</sub>Photoelectrodes for Photoinduced Cathodic Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, various factors affecting the applicability and performance of prepared SrTiO 3 photoelectrodes for photoinduced cathodic protection (CP) were investigated. The capability of the photoelectrode for photoinduced CP depends on the type of steels to be protected. A higher photo current density is required to cathodically protect X52 carbon steel than 304 stainless steel. Threshold areas of the photoelectrode relative to that of the cathode exist for both steels to enable photoinduced CP. The threshold area ratio of the SrTiO 3 photoelectrode to X52 carbon steel is 8: 1 in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution, while, for 304 stainless steel, the area ratio of 1: 1 is sufficient for photoinduced CP. The photoinduced CP performance depends on the hole scavenger used in the photoelectrode cell. Na 2 S is an effective hole scavenger, and both X52 carbon and 304 stainless steels are cathodically polarized by photoelectrons to sufficiently negative values for a full CP. Moreover, the SrTiO 3 photoelectrode can fully protect X52 steel only when the light intensity is up to 125 mW/cm 2 , while a light intensity of 50 mW/cm 2 enables a full CP on 304 stainless steel. The photoinduced CP performance is also subject to the corrosivity of the solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".