A BOND-VALENCE APPROACH TO THE STRUCTURE, CHEMISTRY AND PARAGENESIS OF HYDROXY-HYDRATED OXYSALT MINERALS. II. CRYSTAL STRUCTURE AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF BORATE MINERALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal structures and chemical compositions of hydroxy-hydrated borate oxysalt minerals are interpreted in terms of the bond-valence approach to the structure and chemistry of oxysalts developed by Schindler & Hawthorne (2001). The grand mean Lewis basicity of structural units in hydroxy-hydrated borate minerals is 0.21 vu . For stable structures to occur, the Lewis acidities of the interstitial complexes must match this value on average. Hence the percentage of transformer (H 2 O) groups in borate minerals is strongly positively correlated with the Lewis basicity of the interstitial cation(s), a direct result of the valence-matching principle. Thus on average, interstitial Mg must bond to transformer (H 2 O) groups, whereas interstitial Na will not bond to transformer (H 2 O) groups. Detailed predictions of the compositions of interstitial complexes are developed for the structural units [B 3 O 3 (OH) 5 ] 2− , [B 4 O 5 (OH) 4 ] 2− and [B 6 O 7 (OH) 6 ] 2− , and these predictions are in accord with the chemical compositions of inderite, inderborite, inyoite, meyerhofferite, tincalconite, borax, hungchaoite, rivadavite, mcallisterite, admontite and aksaite. General predictions for Cl-free hydroxy-hydrated borate minerals lead to accurate prediction of coordination number of interstitial cations in 90% of the minerals, and 95% have the observed amount of transformer (H 2 O) groups within the predicted range for each mineral. This agreement between the predicted and observed values suggests that the general argument developed by Schindler & Hawthorne (2001) is physically realistic and should be applicable to oxysalt minerals in general.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".