MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036906732 · doi:10.1080/00218464.2011.609455

The Extended Peel Zone Model: Effect of Peeling Velocity

2011· article· en· W2036906732 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Zhou, Yu Tian, Noshir S. Pesika, Hongbo Zeng, Jin Wan, Yonggang Meng, Shizhu Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Adhesion · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialAdhesiveSubstrate (aquarium)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGeologyLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the peel zone model proposed by Pesika et al. [8 Pesika , N. S. , Tian , Y. , Zhao , B. , Rosenberg , K. , Zeng , H. , McGuiggan , P. , Autumn , K. , and Israelachvili , J. N. , J. Adhes. 83 , 383 – 401 ( 2007 ).[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]], the peel strength of an adhesive tape is proportional to the length of the peel zone or the bifurcation region at the peeling front between the tape backing and the substrate. In this study, the effects of the peel angle and peel velocity on the shape of the peel zone and the peel strength are further investigated theoretically and experimentally. The theoretical analysis on the angle at the edge of the peel zone, θ0, and the peel strengths at different peel velocities and angles was compared with experimental tests using three different commercial tapes. The experimental results are in good agreement with the extended peel zone model, which provides a simple approach to predict the peel strength of adhesive tapes with different physical properties at different peel angles and velocities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of AdhesionSame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207