A Critical Review of Evaluation Methods of Ice Adhesion Strength on the Surface of Materials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several techniques have already been proposed to determine ice adhesion strength. This study made a critical review of the existing methods and proposed three other techniques for ice/substrate systems, where the latter techniques have already been used to other adhesive/substrate systems. In this study, these methods are compared for their performance and limitations, with a selection of the most promising ones. The main conclusions are: in most techniques, test procedures required a long time while showing a low degree of reproducibility. Cohesive and adhesive failures, as well as a combination of both, were observed in the measurements. Macroscopic or microscopic/nanoscopic scale tests were used to evaluate ice adhesion strength Micro/nano scale tests using Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) or nano indentation instrument can be used to estimate the nature and surface energy of water-repellent materials, and identify materials with low-ice adhesion. Among various methods the combination of AFM /nano-indentation technique with either lap-shear or combined lap-shear and tensile modes should be the most powerful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it