POSSIBLE STRUCTURAL AND CHEMICAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE CYANOTRICHITE GROUP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The members of the cyanotrichite group, cyanotrichite, carbonate-cyanotrichite, camerolaite and khaidarkanite, are closely related in terms of their structures, although the single-crystal structure of the latter is the only one to have been determined. Powder X-ray-diffraction data for all members can be indexed on the basis of a common monoclinic cell with a ≈ 10.2, b ≈ 2.9, c ≈ 12.6 A and β in the range 92.3–97.9° ( a and c are interchanged in khaidarkanite owing to C -centering). The structures of cyanotrichite, carbonate-cyanotrichite and camerolaite can be rationalized in terms of that of khaidarkanite, with sulfate and carbonate taking the positions of AlF3 groups. Ordering and disordering of the sites yields P - and C -centered cells, respectively, depending on composition. The analytical data originally reported for carbonate-cyanotrichite are re-interpreted in terms of Al(OH)3 taking the place of AlF3 groups in khaidarkanite. There is no evidence for solid solution between cyanotrichite and carbonate-cyanotrichite; it is evident that some carbonate-cyanotrichite specimens contain no sulfate. A range of other stoichiometries may be accommodated by the archetypical structural motif, and these remain to be discovered in nature. Other related species, including a Co-rich member of the group from the Grandview mine, Arizona, and a cyanotrichite-like phase from the Clara mine, Germany, have also been examined. These too conform to the structural relations that have been derived. Final resolution of the nature of individual members of the group awaits single-crystal structural studies, if and when suitable crystals become available, or if structure solution using powder X-ray diffraction data or ab initio methods becomes possible.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".