The crystal chemistry of the gedrite-group amphiboles. II. Stereochemistry and chemical relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The general formula of the amphiboles of this series may be written as NaxMg2(Mg(5-y)Aly,)(Si(8-z)Alz)O22(OH)2, where Mg = Mg + Fe2+ + Mn2+ and Al = Al + Fe3+ + Ti. The individual <T–O> distances are linear functions of their [4]Al content, and the [4]Al content is strongly ordered in the following way: T1B > T1A » T2B » T2A. The <M1-O>, <M2-O> and <M3–O> distances are linear functions of the mean ionic radius of their constituent cations. End-member compositions may be written as follows: A☐Mg2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2O22(OH)2; A☐Mg2(Mg3Al2)(Si6Al2)O22(OH)2; ANaMg2Mg5(Si7Al) These compositions define a plane in xyz space across which the data of Schindler et al. (2008), measured on amphiboles from amphibolites, follow a tightly constrained trajectory. Anthophyllite–gedrite amphiboles equilibrated under significantly different P-T conditions (e.g. igneous rocks, contact-metamorphic rocks) follow trends that diverge from this trajectory, with greater Na and [4]Al contents and relatively smaller [6]Al contents. Detailed examination of the local bond topology involving the A and M2 sites indicates that the maximum degree of bond-valence compensation will occur for incorporation of ANa and M2Al in the ratio 4:10, and hence 2.5 ANa = M2Al in these amphiboles. This relation closely fits the data of Schindler et al. (2008), suggesting that the variation in chemical composition in anthophyllite–gedrite amphiboles is strongly constrained by the anion bond-valence requirements of the Pnma amphibole structure. We further suggest that different compositional trends for ortho-amphiboles equilibrated under different P-T conditions are the result of the valence-sum rule operating with (different) bond-lengths characteristic of these P-T conditions.
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) | 0.003 | 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".