Polyhedral serpentine: a spherical analogue of polygonal serpentine?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vugs in late hydrothermal veins in the serpentinite at Gew-graze, Lizard, Cornwall, UK, contain serpentine spheres ≤0.7 mm in diameter composed of a crystallographically controlled radial array of well crystallized lizardite-1T crystals. Examinations with optical and scanning electron microscopy reveal that the spheres actually have polyhedral morphology. The polyhedral facets at the sphere surface are the (0001) terminations of individual single crystals of lizardite. Each lizardite crystal is a hexagonal prism and tapers inwards to the core. The angle from prism axis to prism axis is always ∼24°, and this angle is consistent even though individual prisms have not maintained contact during growth. The space between prisms is filled by smaller crystals of lizardite in more random orientations, forming a solid sphere. Collectively, the tapering prisms form a growth array that produces a surface tessellation consisting of mainly 6-fold neighbours, but with some 5-fold arrangements to accommodate a closed spherical structure. A ‘buckybalF, modified by adding face-centring points to each hexagon and pentagon, provides a useful model to describe the space filling adopted by the polyhedral lizardite spheres. Cross sections (close to an equatorial plane) through these polyhedral spheres resemble cross sections of polygonal serpentine, with 15 sectors at 24° to each other, though very much larger in diameter.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".