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 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

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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