MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142456793 · doi:10.1002/aws2.1221

A 30‐year review of copper pitting corrosion and pinhole leaks: Achievements and research gaps

2021· review· en· W3142456793 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

VenueAWWA Water Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPitting corrosionErosion corrosion of copper water tubesAlkalinityCopperCorrosionEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyEnvironmental chemistryChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite decades of research, the pitting of copper pipes is poorly understood. This article summarizes the key research findings from 1990 to the present and identifies research gaps. Several lines of evidence suggest that, for soft waters, additional alkalinity or maintaining a pH <8.5 may reduce copper pitting. Phosphate corrosion inhibitors, used to prevent lead corrosion, may also moderate copper pitting in low‐alkalinity waters. However, such inhibitors could also exacerbate pitting due to insufficient coverage or could increase biological growth. Biological processes are likely involved in pitting corrosion, and practices to reduce biological growth may be beneficial. The research gaps identified include a need for better benchmarking, the effects of chemical transients (e.g., chlorine burns) and of hydraulic transients (e.g., water hammer), and changing the residual disinfectant from chlorine to chloramine. Article Impact Statement Approximately 750,000 pinhole leaks are estimated to occur in the United States each year, but we do not really know why.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.311 · 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