MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084740143 · doi:10.3749/canmin.51.5.771

IS NEAR-ENDMEMBER BIREFRINGENT GROSSULAR NON-CUBIC? NEW EVIDENCE FROM SYNCHROTRON DIFFRACTION

2013· article· en· W2084740143 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrossularBirefringenceMaterials scienceEndmemberSynchrotronDiffractionGeologyCrystallographyOpticsComposite materialChemistryPhysicsQuartzRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structures of three birefringent (samples 1 and 2 from Quebec and sample 3 from Tanzania) and one isotropic grossular (sample 4 from Afghanistan) were refined with the Rietveld method, cubic space group Ia 3 d, and monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) data. Electron microprobe (EMPA) results indicate that the garnets are homogeneous with compositions as follows: (1) {Ca2.92Mn2+0.05Fe2+0.01}∑2.98[Al1.91Fe3+0.09Ti4+0.02]∑2.02(Si2.96Al0.04) ∑3O12, Grs94Adr3; (2) {Ca2.99}[Al1.65Cr3+0.22Fe3+0.05Ti4+0.05Mn3+0.04]∑2.01(Si2.94Al0.06)∑3O12, Grs82Uv11; (3) {Ca2.95Mg0.04Mn2+0.01} ∑3[Al1.04Fe3+0.86Ti4+0.07Mn3+0.01Mg0.01]∑1.99(Si2.94Al0.06)∑3O12, Grs51Adr43; and (4) {Ca2.95Mn2+0.01Fe2+0.01Mg0.01} ∑2.98[Al1.85Fe3+0.16Ti4+0.01]∑2.02(Si2.97Al0.03)∑3O12, Grs91Adr6. Samples 1 and 4 are near-endmember grossular. Two different cubic phases occur in the three birefringent samples, and a single cubic phase occurs in the isotropic sample 4. Their crystal structures are modelled well, as indicated by their Rietveld refinement reduced χ2 and corresponding overall R ( F 2) values for the four samples as follows: (1) 1.078 and 0.0368; (2) 1.081 and 0.0434; (3) 1.902 and 0.0361; and (4) 1.235 and 0.0491. The dominant phase has the following unit-cell parameters (A) and weight fractions (%) for the four samples: (1) a = 11.85140(1), 83.0(2); (2) a = 11.87707(2), 71.3(1); (3) a = 11.94161(1), 91.95(2); and (4) a = 11.85584(1) A, 100%. Their bond distances and site occupancy factors ( sofs ) are as follows: (1) = 2.4017, Al–O = 1.9269(4), Si–O = 1.6506(4) A; Ca( sof ) = 0.964(1), Al( sof ) = 0.954(1), and Si( sof ) = 0.917(1); (2) = 2.4057, Al–O = 1.9371(7), Si–O = 1.6508(6) A; Ca( sof ) = 0.953(1), Al( sof ) = 1.046(2), and Si( sof ) = 0.916(1); (3) = 2.4174, Al–O = 1.9675(4), Si–O = 1.6444(4) A; Ca( sof ) = 0.946(1), Al( sof ) = 1.355(2), and Si( sof ) = 0.932(1); and (4) = 2.4060, Al–O = 1.9292(4), Si–O = 1.6473(4) A; Ca( sof ) = 0.964(1), Al( sof ) = 0.994(1), and Si( sof ) = 0.925(1). The sofs are similar to those obtained by EMPA. The two cubic phases intergrown in the three birefringent samples cause strain that arise from mismatch of unit-cell and bond distances and give rise to strain-induced birefringence. Sample 4 is an isotropic single-phase grossular.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · 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