"EQUILIBRIUM" AND "NON-EQUILIBRIUM" DIAMOND CRYSTALS FROM DEPOSITS IN THE EAST EUROPEAN PLATFORM, AS REVEALED BY INFRARED ABSORPTION DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost 600 diamond crystals from Western Russian kimberlite pipes of the Arkhangelsk area and Kola Peninsula and from placer deposits of the Urals and Timan areas were studied with IR spectrometry methods, in order to evaluate the presence of nitrogen and other impurity centers. The crystals differ in their total nitrogen contents and in the concentration of individual structural impurities according to their provenance. There are differences in the temperature of formation of diamond from each deposit: from 1075‐1100°C for the Arkhangelsk suite to 1125‐1150°C for the Timan and Urals suites. Diamond crystals with octahedral zoning (tangential mechanism of growth) are characterized by the lowest contents of nitrogen, and have a rather uniform distribution of impurity centers. Samples with combined mechanisms of growth demonstrate a paradoxical relationship between temperatures of formation for the central and marginal zones of the crystals; temperatures calculated for the cores are 15‐50°C lower than those estimated for the marginal zones. This paradox is caused by differences in the mechanism of growth. Diamond crystals with octahedral zoning were formed under equilibrium conditions, whereas crystals with normal or combined mechanisms of growth had a rate of crystallization probably higher than the rate of aggregation of nitrogen atoms in the crystals. The latter were formed under non-equilibrium conditions. As a result, values of the temperature of formation determined by IR spectroscopy are only realistic for those crystals that grew under equilibrium conditions. For crystals with normal and combined mechanisms of growth, temperature values calculated from IR data may be unrealistic, as they also depend on the kinetics of the crystallization process.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".