Investigating crevice corrosion of copper and copper alloys using wire beam electrode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wire beam electrode (WBE) method for investigating the crevice corrosion has been demonstrated by mapping non-uniform corrosion processes occurring on copper and copper alloys including the pure copper UNS No. C11000 (Cu), brass UNS No. C28000 (Cu–Zn alloy) and tin bronze UNS No. C51900 (Cu–Sn alloy) in mass 0.6% NaCl solution with the crevice spacings of d =103 μm and 206 μm. It was found that the sequence of three copper alloys in susceptibility for the crevice corrosion was that Cu–Zn alloy > Cu–Sn alloy > pure Cu. The average galvanic current of the Cu–Sn alloy in the covered region was changed from cathode to anode when the crevice spacing was increased to 206 μm. To sum up, it is feasible to study the behaviours of crevice corrosion within the different crevice spacings with the WBE method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".