Preferred orientation of mineral grains in sample mounts for quantitative XRD measurements: How random are powder samples?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The degree of preferred orientation of mineral grains in powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) samples prepared by standard techniques has been evaluated by means of a correction model implemented in the Rietveld program, BGMN. It is demonstrated that neither front- nor side-loading of mineral powders obtained by wet grinding in a McCrone micronizing mill yield powder mounts with randomly oriented particles. Despite fine grinding, the primary sizes and shapes of mineral grains contained in multi-phase samples influence the degree of preferred orientation in XRD powder mounts. Two minerals, both of platy habit, were found to show different degrees of preferred orientation in front- and side-loaded samples. In contrast to these methods of sample preparation, the spray-drying technique yielded perfect randomness of the particles. The experiments on artificial mineral mixtures demonstrate that the model applied can effectively correct for preferred orientation allowing reliable Rietveld quantitative phase analysis of moderately textured samples prepared by standard techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it