The significance of the aluminium content of a lizardite at the nanoscale: the role of clinochlore as an aluminium sink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lizardite-1T crystals from Gew-graze at the Lizard, Cornwall, of an apparent composition (Mg2.94Fe0.03Al0.03)(Si1.97Al0.03)05(OH)4, have been observed to contain 2–5% of thin interstratifications of clinochlore when investigated by analytical transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The clinochlore is usually only a few unit layers thick but has an extensive lateral dimension parallel to the lizardite layers. Analytical TEM confirms the existence of very low-Al lizardite with a planar structure interstratified with occasional thin units of clinochlore containing substantial Al. Compositionally, such clinochlore (invisible by X-ray diffraction) interstratified throughout the lizardite crystals, could account for most of the Al present. We suggest that an occasional influx of Al causes the nucleation and growth of clinochlore at the expense of lizardite. The possibility of clinochlore contributing to the measured Al content in lizardite samples highlights the need for future investigations of Al-bearing serpentines to include careful examination and interpretation using imaging and analysis by TEM. It has crept into serpentine discussions that lizardite cannot form without the coupled substitution of Al to relieve the misfit between the sheets of octahedra and tetrahedra. The lizardite at Gew-graze is almost Al-free, forms well-crystallized planar crystals and demonstrates that Al is not an essential element for lizardite crystallization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".