MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982996232 · doi:10.1080/00218460309558

Strength of adhesive joints with adherend yielding: II. Peel experiments and failure criteria

2003· article· en· W1982996232 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Adhesion · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceAdhesiveComposite materialPhase angle (astronomy)Fracture (geology)CurvatureEpoxyStrain energyStress (linguistics)von Mises yield criterionStructural engineeringMathematicsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peel tests were conducted with an epoxy adhesive on nine rigid-flexible peel configurations: combinations of 1, 2, and 3 mm aluminum adherend thickness and 30°, 60°, and 90° peel angle. The peel model described in an accompanying paper was used to calculate the stress and strain distributions in the adhesive, the strain energy release rates, and the root curvature of the adherend corresponding to steady-state peel failure. Two failure criteria were examined: the critical von Mises strain and the critical fracture energy, G c . The first criterion was found to be essentially independent of the peel angle but dependent on the thickness of the peel adherend. It produced predictions of the peel force that had an average error of 11%. The fracture energy criterion showed that G c depended on the average phase angle of the loading. This criterion was preferred, having an average prediction error of 6% over the nine experimental cases, and requiring fewer free parameters.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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