Classification of pitting corrosion damage in process facilities using supervised machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Corrosion is widely known to be a major cause of the failures in process facilities. Prediction of corrosion damage is therefore essential for industries to manage the availability of their assets. This research aims to investigate the application of supervised machine learning methods for the classification of pitting corrosion damage. Several machine learning classifiers, namely ensemble methods, support vector machine (SVM), K‐nearest neighbours, and the decision tree are used to classify the extent of pitting corrosion damage in corroded steel samples. To simulate the corrosion of the steel samples, a series of laboratory experiments were conducted. After processing the results using appropriate statistical methods, the corrosion data was used to train the machine learning models. The trained models can predict the class of corrosion damage with acceptable accuracy using the material and environmental specifications of the samples. Additionally, a discussion on the selection of machine learning techniques which classify corrosion damage using a risk‐based approach is provided. With their optimal accuracy and lower risk of misclassification, the SVM and AdaBoost models perform better than the other studied models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".