MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986487840 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.44.6.1403

SULFATE MINERALS. I. BOND TOPOLOGY AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

2006· article· en· W1986487840 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael Schindler, D. M.C. Huminicki, F. C. Hawthorne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsChemistryValence (chemistry)CrystallographyCationic polymerizationFormula unitHydrogen bondChemical bondElectrophileSulfateMoleculeCrystal structureInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structure of an oxysalt mineral may be divided into two parts: (1) the structural unit , an array of high-bond-valence polyhedra that is usually anionic in character, and (2) the interstitial complex , an array of large low-valence cations, simple anions, (OH) and (H2O) groups that is usually cationic in character. The chemical compositions of interstitial complexes in sulfate minerals are explained and predicted using intrinsic properties such as polarity, Lewis acidity, coordination numbers and the average charge of oxygen atoms in the structural unit (average basicity). The interstitial complex can be characterized by its Lewis acidity , a measure of the electrophilic character of the complex, and the structural unit can be characterized by its range in Lewis basicity . Any complex structural unit [ M z +(H2O) n (OH) m (SO4) k ] can be divided into an acidic component of ( M z +ϕ n ) polyhedra and a basic component of (SO4) groups. The ligands of the acidic component are primarily bond-valence donors, and the O atoms of the basic component are bond-valence acceptors. Neutral structural units must arrange themselves such that their acidic and basic parts match each other in order to allow linkage via hydrogen bonds. Additional (H2O) groups between structural units are required where hydrogen bonds cannot be accepted directly by a donor atom of the basic part of the structural unit. The Lewis acidities of interstitial complexes in sulfate minerals range from 0.10 to 0.25 vu (valence units), with frequency maxima at 0.13, 0.17, 0.20–0.21 and 0.25 vu . These maxima correspond to average coordination-numbers of oxygen atoms in the basic component of the structural unit. Using the characteristic range in Lewis basicity of a structural unit and the maximum frequencies of Lewis acidities, the most probable number of bonds from the interstitial complex to the structural unit may be predicted using the valence-matching principle. This number allows prediction of the types of interstitial complexes for a given structural unit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicCrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207