Surface-Tolerant, Aluminum-Foil, Tape Coating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aluminum foil coatings are applied by adhering a laminated film containing an aluminum foil layer to a steel substrate. Aluminum foil coatings are known to possess better barrier properties and provide better protection to corners (sharp edges) than conventional liquid applied coatings of similar film thickness. A cyclic salt-fog test was used to characterize the corrosion control behavior of various aluminum foil coatings applied to rusted steel. The test data showed that, in addition to controlling corrosion by a barrier mechanism, some of the foil coatings controlled the spread of corrosion at scribes and holidays by a cathodic protection mechanism. Rust creepage rate decreased as foil thickness increased. Most of the foil coatings outperformed the epoxy mastic coating that was used as a comparison. Adhering bare foil directly to a minimally prepared, rusted steel substrate resulted in rapid pitting and perforation of the foil; however pitting did not occur if an intermediate organic layer was present, between the foil and the rusted steel. In the maintenance of minimally prepared steel in a marine atmosphere, a properly designed coating system, containing an aluminum foil layer, would be expected to be significantly more durable than a traditional liquid applied coating of similar film thickness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".