Induced Polarization (<i>IP</i>) of Soil as a Source of Error in the Measurement of Polarized Cathodic Protection Potentials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it