MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414617757 · doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2025.156196

Understanding localized corrosion of Ni- and Fe-based alloys in 280 °C mildly acidic sulfate environments

2025· article· en· W4414617757 on OpenAlexafffund
Victor U. Okoro, Kevin Daub, S.Y. Persaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Materials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear EngineeringNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's University
KeywordsSulfurSulfateIntergranular corrosionPitting corrosionAlloyChromium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of sulfur on the localized corrosion susceptibility of Alloys 600 (Ni-16Cr-9Fe), 690 (Ni-30Cr-10Fe), and 800 (Fe-32Ni-21Cr) was investigated and compared in 280°C mildly acidic sulfate solutions. Variations in chromium content impacted the development of passivity and localized corrosion resistance of the alloys. Alloy 690, with the highest chromium content, demonstrated superior passivity and pitting resistance, with sulfur incorporated in the surface oxide layer. In contrast, Alloys 600 and 800 showed increased susceptibility to intergranular corrosion and pitting, respectively, with sulfur present at the oxide-metal interface (penetrated past the surface oxide). The density of pits or intergranularly attacked regions per unit area increased with a decrease in chromium content. Microscopic analysis of the passive films on each alloy revealed nanoscale differences in adhesion, oxide chemistry, and pitting behavior/susceptibility. These findings demonstrate the role of alloying elements and the effect of sulfur on a passive film.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MaterialsSame topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207