MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409484165 · doi:10.5006/c2014-4171

Induced Polarization (<i>IP</i>) of Soil as a Source of Error in the Measurement of Polarized Cathodic Protection Potentials

2014· article· en· W4409484165 on OpenAlexaff
Robert G. Wakelin, Wolfgang Fieltsch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPhilips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCathodic protectionPolarization (electrochemistry)Materials scienceEnvironmental sciencePhysicsElectrodeElectrochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is generally accepted that a buried steel structure cannot be cathodically polarized to a potential much more electronegative than approximately -1.2 VCSE, due to the limiting potential encountered with the electrolysis of water. Nevertheless, cathodic protection data obtained in the field often includes off-potential measurements significantly more electronegative than would seem possible in theory. While there are a variety of possible explanations for such erroneous data (e.g. the failure to interrupt all influential current sources), it is proposed that in some cases, the polarization of the soil itself may be responsible. Time-domain induced polarization (IP) is a well-established geophysical survey technique in which the polarization characteristics of the soil are quantified, as a means of identifying mineral deposits. This paper discusses the theory behind the IP technique, and suggests how the polarization of certain soils might lead to off-potential measurements which are more electronegative than the true polarized potentials of a cathodically protected structure. Off-potential data from one case history is presented to support this theory.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207