MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168755608 · doi:10.5006/c2021-16807

AC Corrosion at Other Frequencies Part a: Field Investigation and Mitigation

2021· article· en· W3168755608 on OpenAlexaff
Wolfgang Fieltsch, Andreas Junker Olesen, Fation Shahinas, Lars Vendelbo Nielsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)Cochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionMaterials scienceField (mathematics)MetallurgyNuclear engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A 2018 field investigation on an NPS 6, approximately 4 km long, liquid pipeline, identified a rectifier as the likely source of the elevated DC and AC current densities, which resulted in AC corrosion anomalies detected during in-line inspections (ILI). The findings of this case study, presented in the NACE Corrosion 2019 Paper No. 13188, indicated that the 120 Hz rectifier ripple may have contributed to the accelerated AC corrosion at this location. This follow-up paper is Part A of a two-part further investigation into corrosion rates on cathodically protected structures due to AC frequencies other than the fundamental power frequencies of 50 Hz and 60 Hz. Part A involves additional field testing on the subject pipeline, and commissioning of the recommended AC mitigation and monitoring systems. Part B of this investigation will be presented in a separate paper (NACE Corrosion 2020 Paper No. 14916) and will discuss the results of laboratory testing to determine corrosion rates of cathodically protected steel in simulated soil conditions at various AC frequencies.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207