MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034325628 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.42.1.43

THE SYSTEM Fe Co Ni As S. I. PHASE RELATIONS IN THE (Fe,Co,Ni)As0.5S1.5 SECTION AT 650  AND 500 C

2004· article· en· W2034325628 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. R. Hem, Emil Makovicky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Phase (matter)GeologyMaterials scienceChemistryComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phase relations in the sulfur-rich regions of the system Fe–Co–Ni–As–S were investigated with mineral syntheses, and characterization of the products by electron-microprobe analysis and powder X-ray diffraction. The experimental charges were weighed with an atomic ratio (Fe + Co + Ni) /(As + S) of 1:2 and a S:As ratio of 3:1. Two isothermal sections were investigated, 500 ° and 650°C. The 500°C experiments resulted in the formation of arsenopyrite, cobaltite, cattierite, gersdorffite, linnaeite, monosulfide solid-solution, pyrite, siegenite and vaesite. Pyrite, the most common phase, is found in all Fe-bearing assemblages. The phase assemblages formed at 650°C involve cattierite, vaesite, cobaltite and gersdorffite in Fe-poor samples. In Fe-rich samples, the phase assemblage is dominated by monosulfide solid-solution and As1–xSx melt. The formation of this melt made it possible to estimate the activity of sulfur, using the constraints of Barton (1969). Cobaltite, cattierite and gersdorffite all show extensive solid-solution with respect to Co–Ni and As–S. All the Me(As,S)2 phases have a pyrite-type structure with a disordered distribution of As and S (space group Pa3); the unit-cell parameter a was determined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207