MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967899025 · doi:10.1346/ccmn.2005.0530205

Conversion of chrysotile to a magnesian smectite

2005· article· en· W1967899025 on OpenAlex
Michael C. Cheshire, Necip Güven

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClays and Clay Minerals · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLayered Double Hydroxides Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallographyPhysicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chrysotile from Thetford Mines in Quebec, Canada was treated first with mild formic or oxalic acid at concentrations of 0.5 to 2.0 N at 200°C in Teflon-lined 12.0 mL Parr bombs. The reaction products were identified by X-ray diffraction as a poorly crystalline Fe-bearing kerolite-like 2:1 layer silicate (which will be described as a kerolitic precipitate or a kerolitic mesophase in this report). Electron microscopic examination showed a thin foily morphology for this kerolitic mesophase that may have formed by the following reaction: (1) $\mathop {{\rm{M}}{{\rm{g}}_{\rm{6}}}{\rm{S}}{{\rm{i}}_{\rm{4}}}{{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{10}}}}{{\left( {{\rm{OH}}} \right)}_{{8_{\left( {\rm{s}} \right)}}}}}\limits_{{\rm{chrysotile}}} + 6.02{{\rm{H}}^{\rm{ + }}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)} + 0.54{\rm{F}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{2 + }}}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)} \to \mathop {\left( {{\rm{M}}{{\rm{g}}_{{\rm{2}}{\rm{.46}}}}{\rm{Fe}}_{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.54}}}^{{\rm{2 + }}}} \right){\rm{S}}{{\rm{i}}_{\rm{4}}}{{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{10}}}}{{\left( {{\rm{OH}}} \right)}_{\rm{2}}} \cdot n}\limits_{{\rm{kerolitic}}\;{\rm{mesophase}}} {{\rm{H}}_{\rm{2}}}{{\rm{O}}_{\left( {\rm{s}} \right)}} + {\rm{3}}{\rm{.55M}}{{\rm{g}}^{{\rm{2 + }}}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)}$ The magnetite impurity in the initial chrysotile asbestos served as the source of Fe in the above reactions. Subsequently, this kerolitic precipitate was reacted with 0.2 N NaOH for 48–96 h at 200°C and a highly crystalline smectite was formed with the same foily morphology as the kerolitic precipitate. X-ray spectral analyses of the kerolitic mesophase and smectite suggest the following reaction to have taken place: (2) $\eqalign{ & \mathop {\left( {{\rm{M}}{{\rm{g}}_{{\rm{2}}{\rm{.46}}}}{\rm{Fe}}_{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.54}}}^{{\rm{2 + }}}} \right){\rm{S}}{{\rm{i}}_{\rm{4}}}{{\rm{O}}_{{\rm{10}}}}{{\left( {{\rm{OH}}} \right)}_{\rm{2}}}}\limits_{{\rm{kerolitic}}\;{\rm{mesophase}}} \cdot n{{\rm{H}}_{\rm{2}}}{{\rm{O}}_{\left( {\rm{s}} \right)}} + {\rm{0}}{\rm{.53M}}{{\rm{g}}^{{\rm{2 + }}}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)} + 0.54{\rm{NaO}}{{\rm{H}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)}} + 0.01{\rm{F}}{{\rm{e}}^{{\rm{3 + }}}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)} \to \cr & \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\mathop {\;\;{\rm{N}}{{\rm{a}}_{0.54}}\left( {{\rm{M}}{{\rm{g}}_{{\rm{2}}{\rm{.99}}}}{\rm{Fe}}_{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.01}}}^{{\rm{2 + }}}} \right)\left( {{\rm{S}}{{\rm{i}}_{{\rm{3}}{\rm{.46}}}}{\rm{Fe}}_{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.54}}}^{{\rm{3 + }}}} \right){{\rm{O}}_{10}}{{\left( {{\rm{OH}}} \right)}_{{\rm{2}}\;\left( {\rm{s}} \right)}}}\limits_{{\rm{saponite}}} + 0.54{\rm{S}}{{\rm{i}}^{{\rm{4 + }}}}_{\left( {{\rm{aq}}} \right)} \cr} $ The reaction products, a kerolitic mesophase and smectite, possess a non-fibrous habit in contrast to the fibrous (asbestiform) morphology of chrysotile.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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