MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407111743 · doi:10.1002/maco.202414640

Effect of Sulfate‐Based Stabilizers on the Rust Layer Formation and Corrosion Resistance of Q420qNH Weathering Steel

2025· article· en· W4407111743 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Fan, Jie Ke, Jianjun Yang, Deng Luo, Caihe Fan, Xiangjiang Xiong, Qian Chen, F W Li, Wei Zhang, Edward Ghali

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials and Corrosion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeathering steelRust (programming language)CorrosionWeatheringLayer (electronics)SulfateResistance (ecology)MetallurgyMaterials scienceComposite materialGeologyGeochemistryComputer scienceAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study investigated the use of sulfate‐based stabilizers to stabilize the surface of Q420qNH weathering steel (WS) and their effect on rust layer formation and corrosion resistance. Dry/wet cyclic corrosion tests (CCT) were used to examine the effects of the various treatment regimens. The results demonstrated that sulfate‐based stabilizers accelerated the formation of α‐FeOOH, thereby enhancing the corrosion resistance of WS in simulated marine atmospheres. Particularly, the A1 stabilizer consisting of the CuSO 4 , FeSO 4 , NaHSO 3 , and Cr 2 (SO 4 ) 3 solution system shows better applicability under the simulated marine atmosphere. Specifically, after 8+64CCTs, the corrosion rate of sample A1 decreased by 54%, while the proportion of α‐FeOOH, the α / γ * value, and the self‐corrosion potential ( E corr ) increased by 15%, 0.55, and 0.29 V, respectively. The rust layer of Q420qNH WS primarily consists of γ‐FeOOH, α‐FeOOH, Fe 3 O 4 , and γ‐Fe 2 O 3 . Surface stabilization treatment with sulfate‐based stabilizers promoted the enrichment of Cu and Cr in the cracks, facilitating the filling of these defects and enhancing the stability and corrosion potential of the rust layer.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials and CorrosionSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207