Evaluating the Corrosiveness of Southern Pine Treated with Several Wood Preservatives Using Electrochemical Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chromated copper arsenate (CCA), the most widely used wood preservative of the past 50 years, has been replaced for most uses with alkaline-copper systems such as alkaline copper quaternary (ACQ), copper azole (CuAz) and micronized copper quaternary (MCQ). Preliminary research using high-temperature, high-humidity environments have shown that some of these wood preservatives are more corrosive than CCA, although it is unclear how the results of these extreme tests correlate to performance at temperatures and humidities seen in-service. Recently, the authors developed an electrochemical method for rapid determination of the corrosion rate for fasteners in water extracts of treated wood. The authors have previously demonstrated good correlation between the electrochemical-extract test and exposure tests of fasteners in ACQ treated Southern pine. This work uses the electrochemical-extract method to examine corrosion of carbon steel and galvanized steel on untreated southern pine, as well as southern pine treated with five different wood preservatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".