MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W87232929 · doi:10.5006/c2003-03592

Seasonal Changes in Atmospheric Corrosivity

2003· article· en· W87232929 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Klassen, H. Nyugen, Peter W. Haberecht

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyAtmospheric sciencesMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There have been several attempts to correlate environmental and site-specific variables with atmospheric corrosivity, including the PACER LIME algorithm and the ISO 9223 classification of corrosive atmospheres. However, seasonal variations in corrosivity at the locations tested in this study cannot be readily explained by either of these approaches. The monthly or seasonal corrosivity variations do not track well with monthly variations in time-of-wetness (TOW) or SO2 concentration. It is possible that the approach of averaging TOW, SO2, or chloride deposition rate over a year- or month-long period hides shorter-term events that are truly influential. Therefore, while seasonal or month-long measurements of corrosivity provide more insight than yearlong measurements, it seems necessary to reduce the time scale down to days or hours before clear correlations can be made between corrosivity and corrosion drivers. Also, in urban settings where roads are de-iced, it is necessary to measure chloride deposition rates since it is a significant corrosion driver. Another conclusion is that accounting for the effects of insolation from the sun and convection on the surface temperature of an exposed metal provides more insights than time-of-wetness calculations, which relies on relative humidity alone.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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)0.0140.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207