Development of an Improved Cosmetic Corrosion Test for Finished Aluminum Autobody Panels
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Since 2000, an Aluminum Cosmetic Corrosion task group within the SAE Automotive Corrosion and Protection (ACAP) Committee has existed. The task group has pursued the goal of establishing a standard test method for in-laboratory cosmetic corrosion evaluations of finished aluminum auto body panels. A cooperative program uniting OEM, supplier, and consultants has been created and has been supported in part by USAMP (AMD 309) and the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to this committee's formation, numerous laboratory corrosion test environments have been used to evaluate the performance of painted aluminum closure panels. However, correlations between these laboratory test results and in-service performance have not been established. Thus, the primary objective of this task group's project was to identify an accelerated laboratory test method that correlates well with in-service performance. In this paper the correlation between several common laboratory corrosion tests and in-service corrosion is detailed.</div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it