Fe‐bearing phases in a ureilite fragment from the asteroid 2008 <scp>TC</scp><sub>3</sub> (= Almahata Sitta meteorites): A combined Mössbauer spectroscopy and X‐ray diffraction study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The iron‐bearing phases in a ureilite fragment (AS#051) from the Almahata Sitta meteorite are studied using Mössbauer spectroscopy, X‐ray diffraction (XRD), and electron microprobe analysis (EMPA). AS#051 has a typical ureilite texture of medium‐ to coarse‐grained silicates (olivine, orthopyroxene, and pigeonite) with minor opaques (Fe‐Ni metal, troilite, and graphite). The silicate compositions, determined by EMPA, are homogeneous: olivine (Fo90.2), orthopyroxene (En86.3Fs8.6Wo5.1), and pigeonite (En81.6Fs8.9Wo9.5), and are similar to those of magnesian ureilites. The modal abundance of mineral phases was determined by Rietveld refinement of the powder XRD data. The Mössbauer spectra at 295 K and 78 K are composed of two sharp well‐defined paramagnetic doublets superimposed on a well‐resolved magnetic sextet and other weak absorption features. The two paramagnetic doublets are assigned to olivine and pyroxene (orthopyroxene and pigeonite), and the ferromagnetic sextet to kamacite (magnetic hyperfine field ≈ 33.2 T), in agreement with the XRD characterization. The Mössbauer results also show the presence of small amounts of troilite (FeS) and cohenite ([Fe,Ni,Co]3C). Using the Mössbauer data, the relative abundance of each Fe‐bearing phase is determined and compared with the results obtained by XRD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".