MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042865064 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.39.3.797

STRUCTURE TOPOLOGY AND HYDROGEN BONDING IN MARTHOZITE, Cu2+[(UO2)3(SeO3)2O2](H2O)8, A COMPARISON WITH GUILLEMINITE, Ba[(UO2)3(SeO3)2O2](H2O)3

2001· article· en· W2042865064 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. A. Cooper, F. C. Hawthorne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogen bondTopology (electrical circuits)CrystallographyMaterials scienceChemistryMathematicsCombinatoricsMoleculeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structure of marthozite, Cu 2+ [(UO 2 ) 3 (SeO 3 ) 2 O 2 ] (H 2 O) 8 , a 6.9879(4), b 16.4537(10), c 17.2229(10) A, V 1980.2(3) A 3 , Pbn 2 1 , Z = 4, D calc = 4.37 g/cm 3 , has been solved by direct methods and refined to an R index of 5.7% for 4364 observed (| F o | > 4σ F ) reflections collected with a four-circle diffractometer fitted with Mo K α X-radiation and a CCD detector. There are three unique U sites, each occupied by U 6+ with two short U –O uranyl bonds (1.76–1.82 A) and coordination numbers of [8], [7] and [7], respectively. There are two unique Se sites, each occupied by Se 4+ and coordinated by three O atoms ( Se –O ≈ 1.70 A), forming a triangular pyramid with Se at the apex, indicative of stereoactive lone-pair behavior in Se 4+ . There is one Cu site, occupied by Cu 2+ in octahedral coordination by four (H 2 O) groups ( Cu –H 2 O ≈ 2.0 A) and two O atoms ( Cu –O ≈ 2.4 A). The structural unit is a sheet of composition [(UO 2 ) 3 (SeO 3 ) 2 O 2 ], comprised of chains of edge-sharing (Uϕ n ) polyhedra extending along [100] that are cross-linked in the [001] direction by (SeO 3 ) groups; this sheet is topologically identical to the structural unit in guilleminite, Ba [(UO 2 ) 3 (SeO 3 ) 2 O 2 ] (H 2 O) 3 . Adjacent sheets are linked through interstitial Cu 2+ cations via Cu 2+ –O apical bonds and via H bonds that involve both (H 2 O) groups bonded to Cu 2+ and interstitial (H 2 O) groups not bonded to any cation. The principal differences between marthozite and guilleminite involve the interlayer species. In guilleminite, the Ba atom is centrally positioned with respect to the chain of (UO n ) polyhedra, whereas in marthozite, the Cu 2+ atom is located off the pseudo-mirror plane of the chain of (UO n ) polyhedra. This differential positioning of the interstitial cations results in an intersheet separation in marthozite that is nearly 1 A greater than that in guilleminite, despite the fact that Ba (in guilleminite) is much larger than Cu 2+ (in marthozite). The H-bond arrangement in marthozite is very different from that in guilleminite. In marthozite, there are eight unique interlayer (H 2 O) groups; four of these (H 2 O) groups bond directly to Cu 2+ and four are held in the structure solely by H bonds. In guilleminite, there are two unique interlayer (H 2 O) groups, both of which bond to the interlayer Ba atoms.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207