MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173246214 · doi:10.5006/c2021-16478

Erosion-corrosion Assessment of Cr White Irons

2021· article· en· W3173246214 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Aminul Islam, Jiaren Jiang, Yongsong Xie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetal Alloys Wear and Properties
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionErosionMetallurgyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Erosion-corrosion possesses a serious problem for the mining and mineral processing industries. Handling and processing of silica-based solids results in extremely severe wear conditions. Simultaneous action of erosion, corrosion and their synergistic interactions accelerates the material damage. Chrome white irons (CWI) are extensively used in the oilsands industry for slurry handling equipment. Erosion-corrosion resistance of CWI’s depends on the chemical composition, matrix microstructure, types and volume fraction of carbides. In this study, high-Cr white irons were assessed using a slurry pot erosion-corrosion testing apparatus, where the total erosion-corrosion (E-C) rate as well as the separate components of synergy were determined. It was found that corrosion resistance of white irons largely depends on the amount of dissolved chromium in the matrix. On the other hand, erosion resistance is controlled by the type and volume fraction of carbides. During erosion-corrosion, corrosion enhanced erosion dominates the synergistic component. Material degradation rate depends on the involved wear mechanisms. SEM observation revels that cutting of the metal matrix by erodent at low impingement angles, micro-fracture of the carbides and spallation are the dominant mechanisms.

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 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

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)0.0120.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetal Alloys Wear and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207