Comparative Evaluation of Leather and Polyester Non-Woven Materials for Sports Footwear Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global sports footwear industry demands high-performance materials that offer durability, flexibility, and resilience while maintaining environmental sustainability. Traditional leather has been the primary choice due to its superior mechanical properties, while polyester non-woven materials are emerging as a sustainable and technologically advanced alternative. This study presents a comparative analysis of three natural leather types (cow, goat, and sheep) with polyester non-woven materials, assessing their suitability for sports footwear applications. A series of standardized tests, including shape retention, collapsing load, resilience, and moisture resistance, were conducted to evaluate the materials' mechanical and functional properties. The results indicate that natural leather exhibits superior tensile strength, flexibility, and breathability, making it an ideal material for high-end sports footwear. However, polyester non-woven materials outperform leather in durability, water resistance, and shape retention, positioning them as a promising alternative, particularly for high-impact and water-resistant applications. This study highlights the trade-offs between traditional and synthetic materials, emphasizing the need for hybrid materials that combine the advantages of both. The research further underscores the importance of sustainable material development, reducing environmental impact while maintaining high-performance standards in the footwear industry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".