The Peeling Behavior of Pressure Sensitive Adhesives from Uncoated Papers
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".