MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028294214

Effects of galvanic coupling between carbon steel and stainless steel reinforcements

2003· article· en· W7028294214 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMemory, History, Trauma, Identity
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalvanic cellGalvanic corrosionCarbon steelCoupling (piping)Carbon fibersCorrosionPolarization (electrochemistry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of stainless steel to replace carbon steel in areas vulnerable to corrosion is an economical approach as it extends the service life of reinforced concrete structures. However, concerns associated with galvanic coupling prevent its application. This paper investigates the galvanic coupling behaviours of carbon steel and stainless steels, and compares them to corroding and passive carbon steels. The polarization curves and cyclic voltammograms of carbon and stainless steels, as well as the galvanic coupling behaviours of the steels are presented. The results show oxygen reduction on stainless steel is the rate-determining step for galvanic coupling between corroding carbon steel and stainless steel. It is much lower than for passive carbon steel, even when stainless steel is exposed to high concentrations of chlorides. Therefore, the galvanic coupling current is lower than that coupling between corroding and passive carbon steels. Theresults also show the galvanic coupling current density is very low (about 1 nA cm-2) and will not initiate the corrosion of carbon steel when passive carbon steel is coupled with stainless steel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.204 · 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