MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409528468 · doi:10.5006/c2000-00821

Field Experience and Long Term Monitoring of Some Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures Subjected to Electrochemical Choride Extraction (ECE)

2000· article· en· W4409528468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald R. Jackson, Moavin Islam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Extraction (chemistry)Materials scienceElectrochemistryReinforced concreteStructural engineeringForensic engineeringComposite materialEngineeringElectrodeChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electrochemical chloride extraction (ECE) is a process that is becoming increasingly popular as a viable rehabilitation option to stop on-going corrosion of the embedded steel in chloride contaminated reinforced concrete structures. ECE is accomplished by applying an electric field between a temporary external anode and the reinforcing steel (the cathode) which causes the migration of negatively charged chloride ions in the concrete away from the steel towards the positively charged anode. Since the early 1990’s hundreds of reinforced concrete structures worldwide, including the USA and Canada, have been treated with ECE. Majority of these structures in the USA has been installed through funding from the Federal Highway Administration. The performance of four of these structures has been monitored over the period 1995-1998. The present paper discusses the long-term monitoring results from these four sites which indicate that ECE can be an effective corrosion control option for chloride contaminated reinforced concrete structures.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207