Tangdanite, a new mineral species from the Yunnan Province, China and the discreditation of ‘clinotyrolite’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tangdanite, ideally Ca2Cu9(AsO4)4(SO4)0.5(OH)9·9H2O and monoclinic, is a new mineral species (IMA No. 2011-096) occurring in the Tangdan and Nanniping mines, southeast Dongchuan copper mining district, Dongchuan County, Kunming City Prefecture, Yunnan Province, P. R. China (26°11’N 103°51’E). The mineral is found in the oxidized zone (gossan) of an As-bearing Cu sulfide deposit and is clearly of supergene origin. Associated minerals are chalcopyrite, bornite, chalcocite, covellite, tennantite, enargite, cuprite, malachite, azurite, copper and brochantite. Crystals form radiating or foliated aggregates of flaky crystals up to 3 mm, flattened parallel to (100) and elongated along [001]. It is emerald green with a light green streak, translucent and has a pearly to silky lustre. It is sectile having perfect cleavage on {100} although neither parting nor fracture was observed. No fluorescence in long- or short-wave ultraviolet radiation was observed. The hardness is VHN50 42.0−43.6, mean 42.8 kg mm−2 (2−2½ on the Mohs scale). The density measured by pycnometry is 3.22 g cm−3 (Ma et al., 1980). The calculated density from the empirical chemical formula is 3.32 g cm−3. The compatability index gives 1 − (Kp/Kc) = −0.041 (good). The empirical formula (based on 36 O a.p.f.u) of tangdanite is Ca2.05Cu9.08(As1.03O4)4(S0.63O4)0.5(OH)9·9H2.04O. The simplified formula is Ca2Cu9(AsO4)4(SO4)0.5(OH)9·9H2O. The strongest five reflections in the X-ray powder-diffraction pattern [d in Å(I) (hkl)] are: 4.782(100) ( 1 1), 4.333(71) (6 0 2), 5.263(54) ( 0 2), 3.949(47) (8 0 2) and 2.976(46) ( 1 1). The unit-cell parameters are a = 54.490(9), b = 5.5685(9), c = 10.4690(17) Å, β = 96.294(3)o, V = 3157.4(9) Å3, Z = 4. Its structure was solved and refined in space group C2/c, with R = 0.110.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".