MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057602271 · doi:10.3749/canmin.47.5.1245

THE ORTHORHOMBIC STRUCTURE OF CaCO3, SrCO3, PbCO3 AND BaCO3: LINEAR STRUCTURAL TRENDS

2009· article· en· W2057602271 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sytle M. Antao, I. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthorhombic crystal systemMaterials scienceCrystallographyChemistryCrystal structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structures of four isostructural orthorhombic carbonates, CaCO{sub 3} (aragonite), SrCO{sub 3} (strontianite), PbCO{sub 3} (cerussite), and BaCO{sub 3} (witherite), were obtained by Rietveld refinements using data acquired by synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD). For BaCO{sub 3}, powder neutron-diffraction data were obtained and refined by the Rietveld method. For aragonite, we also carried out a refinement of the structure by single-crystal X-ray diffraction. These carbonates belong to the space group Pmcn, with Z = 4. The CO{sub 3} group is slightly non-planar, and the two independent C-O distances are slightly different. The CO{sub 3} group becomes more symmetrical and less aplanar from CaCO{sub 3} to BaCO{sub 3} (M{sub radii}{sup 2+}: Ca and distances, average angle, and aplanarity. These linear trends are the result of the effective size of the divalent ionic radius of the M cations thatmore » are coordinated to nine oxygen atoms. The geometrical features of the CO{sub 3} group can be obtained reliably only by using neutron-diffraction data, especially in the presence of other heavy atoms.« less

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations174
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicX-ray Diffraction in CrystallographyFrench-language works237,207