Wet-peel: a tool for comparing wet-strength resins
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
Abstract We propose that a testing procedure we call wet-peel significantly augments conventional wet paper testing when comparing wet-strength resin efficacy or the influence wood pulp fiber surface treatments on wet paper strength. A thin layer of wet-strength resin is sandwiched between a pair of thin, wet regenerated cellulose membranes to form a laminate, which is a physical model for fiber-fiber joints in paper. In the wet-peel method, the ninety-degree wet-delamination force gives a direct measure of adhesion in the wet cellulose-cellulose joint. Wet-peel measurements offer: 1) comparisons of wet-strength polymers at the same content of polymer in the laminate joint without the influences of varying fines contents, formation or paper density; 2) measurements of both the wet-strength of cured, dried joints, and the strength of never-dried joints (i. e. analogous to wet-web strength); 3) demonstrations of the influence of fiber surface chemistry modifications including oxidation and the presence of firmly bound polymers; and, 4) the evaluation of more exotic joint structures including layer-by-layer assemblies, microgels and colloidal polyelectrolyte complexes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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