Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A general overview of polyamide technology is presented, with emphasis on commercial practice and technology developed since 1980. The article includes coverage of nomenclature; history; economic, health, and environmental aspects; and physical properties, including crystallinity, solubility, and piezoelectric effects. There is an extensive discussion of chemical properties including methods of preparation (direct amidation, reaction of acid chlorides, and ring‐opening polymerization of lactams via hydrolytic, anionic, and cationic processes); chemical reactions (acidolysis, aminolysis, alcoholysis, ammonolysis, transamidation, transesteramidation, and grafting); and degradation reactions (hydrolysis, thermal degradation, thermooxidation, photodegradation and photooxidation, biodegradation, and mechanodegradation). The manufacturing practices for most commercial nylons that are presented include monomer production for nylon‐6,6, nylon‐6, nylon‐4,6, nylon‐6,9, nylon‐6,10, nylon‐6,12, nylon‐11, nylon‐12, nylon‐12,12, and nylon‐13,13. Nylon‐6,6 and nylon‐6 are compared in detail. There are also discussions of copolyamides, mixed aliphatic–aromatic, and wholly aromatic polyamides. Extensive tables are presented which list CAS Registry Numbers, physical properties, and world‐wide manufacturers of most polyamides.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.052 |
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".