MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384120160 · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuad041

Microbiologically influenced corrosion—more than just microorganisms

2023· review· en· W4384120160 on OpenAlexaff
Judit Knisz, Richard B. Eckert, Lisa M. Gieg, Andrea Koerdt, Jaydie Lee, Elisabete R. Silva, Torben Lund Skovhus, Scott A. Wade

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology
KeywordsMicroorganismBiologyCorrosionMicrobiologyBacteriaMetallurgyMaterials scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is a phenomenon of increasing concern that affects various materials and sectors of society. MIC describes the effects, often negative, that a material can experience due to the presence of microorganisms. Unfortunately, although several research groups and industrial actors worldwide have already addressed MIC, discussions are fragmented, while information sharing and willingness to reach out to other disciplines are limited. A truly interdisciplinary approach, which would be logical for this material/biology/chemistry-related challenge, is rarely taken. In this review, we highlight critical non-biological aspects of MIC that can sometimes be overlooked by microbiologists working on MIC but are highly relevant for an overall understanding of this phenomenon. Here, we identify gaps, methods, and approaches to help solve MIC-related challenges, with an emphasis on the MIC of metals. We also discuss the application of existing tools and approaches for managing MIC and propose ideas to promote an improved understanding of MIC. Furthermore, we highlight areas where the insights and expertise of microbiologists are needed to help progress this field.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations171
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology ReviewsSame topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207