Structural role of copper in the minerals of the pearceite-polybasite group: the case of the new minerals cupropearceite and cupropolybasite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pearceite-polybasite group of minerals, general formula [M6T2S7][Ag9CuS4] with M = Ag, Cu; and T = As, Sb, show a crystal structure which can be described as the succession, along the c axis, of two pseudo-layer modules: a [M6T2S7]2–A module layer and a [Ag9CuS4]2+B module layer. Copper is present in one structural position of the B module layer and replaces Ag in the only fully occupied M position of the A module layer. When the Cu content is >4.00 a.p.f.u., the structural position of the A module layer becomes Cu-dominant and, consequently, the mineral deserves its own name. In this paper we report the crystal-chemical characterization of two Cu-rich members exhibiting the 111 unitcell type (corresponding to the Tac polytype). One sample (space group (P )m1, a 7.3218(8), c 11.8877(13) Å, V 551.90(10) Å3, Z = 1) having As >Sb and with the structural position of the A module layer dominated by Cu, has been named cupropearceite and the other sample (space group (P3̄)m1, a 7.3277(3), c 11.7752(6) Å, V 547.56(8) Å3, Z = 1) having Sb >As has been named cupropolybasite. Both the new minerals and mineral names have been approved by the IMA-CNMNC.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".