MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013985533 · doi:10.5006/c2002-02149

Passive Monitoring of Atmospheric Corrosives and Pollutants at Three CF Bases

2002· article· en· W3013985533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert D. Klassen, P.R. Roberge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Atmospheric corrosion rates are recognized to depend on the deposition rates of corrosives, such as salt aerosols, and pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, as well as the relative humidity. The corrosivity at three Canadian Forces bases (CFB Greenwood, CFB Kingston and CFB Esquimalt) was measured with CLIMAT coupons on a monthly basis. Even though these bases are at opposite ends of Canada, each had a maximum corrosivity in the winter and a minimum corrosivity in the summer. This trend was consistent with the average speed of winds that were associated with a relative humidity greater than 90%. The range of corrosivity near a de-iced road in CFB Kingston during the winter was from moderate marine to severe marine. The patina in the coupons exposed at CFB Kingston during the winter contained elements that could be associated with de-icing salts, such as chloride, as well as sulfur, which is associated with the air pollutant sulfur dioxide. The patina on the coupons exposed at CFB Greenwood during the summer contained sulfur and the patina on the coupons exposed at CFB Esquimalt during the summer contained chloride. Hence corrosion coupons can function as passive monitoring systems for pollutants as well as indicate corrosivity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207