MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995292159 · doi:10.1080/00218460108030743

The Peeling Behavior of Pressure Sensitive Adhesives from Uncoated Papers

2001· article· en· W1995292159 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Properties and Processing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminationMaterials scienceAdhesiveDelamination (geology)Pressure sensitiveComposite materialSurface roughnessSurface finishLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract When a tape based on pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) is peeled from paper, either the tape comes off leaving a clean paper surface or the paper undergoes catastrophic cohesive failure which is the delamination of fiber layers in the paper sheet. The objectives of this work were to determine the links between paper properties and peel characteristics. Peel tests and microscopic analysis of a variety of handmade and commercial papers yielded the following conclusions. The tendency for paper failure is not very sensitive to surface energy. Paper roughness and density seems to be the dominant factors. A relatively smooth but weak paper will give a clean peel whereas a strong but rough handsheet or filter paper will always give paper failure. Lamination pressure is also important. Peel force increases with lamination pressure up to a limit where paper failure begins and the peel force plummets. The peel response of common paper types is mapped onto a 2-D surface whose axis reflects paper surface chemical and structural properties. It is proposed that the initiation of paper failure in peel occurs at fiber ends.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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