MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408605159 · doi:10.5006/mp2011_50_7-134

Corrosion Salaries Inch Higher in North America, Continuing the Upward Trend

2011· article· en· W4408605159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathy Riggs Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials performance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDiverse Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionForensic engineeringMetallurgyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materials Performance conducted its 13th annual corrosion career survey in April to compile information from NACE International members on their annual compensation, job duties, work experience, education level, company size, and number of years in the profession, as well as challenges they face when working to mitigate corrosion. This year, die survey was expanded to include NACE members in Europe as well as die United States and Canada. The survey questionnaire was e-mailed to NACE members in die 17 European Union countries that use the Euro as their currency—Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. Approximately 14% of members contacted in die United States and Canada submitted a completed survey, while close to 19% of members in die selected European countries participated. The MP staff extends its thanks to all who shared the information that helped create this report for NACE members and others who work in corrosion control. Next year’s corrosion career survey will be e-mailed sometime during April 2012.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.006

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials performanceSame topicDiverse Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207