Surface Characteristics of Kaolinite and Other Selected Two Layer Silicate Minerals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The electrokinetic features and interfacial water structure, as revealed from molecular dynamics simulations (MDS) are considered with respect to the anisotropic features of selected two layer silicate minerals. Planar structures of kaolinite and antigorite are compared to the, compositionally equivalent, tubular structures of halloysite and chrysotile with respect to the pH dependency of zeta potential as determined from the electrophoretic mobility measurements. The importance of the atomic mismatch between the tetrahedral and octahedral sheets in a particular bilayer is discussed in order to explain the electrokinetic behaviour of these two layer silicate minerals. Interfacial water structure from MDS suggests that the silica tetrahedral surface is not wetted by water. In the case of planar silicates structural imperfections are considered to explain wetting characteristics. The possibility of polarity reversal (domain inversion) within a tetrahedral/octahedral layer and an out‐of‐order layer (inserted layer) within the tetrahedral/octahedral stack are considered in order to explain electrokinetic behaviour and wetting characteristics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".