Schorlomite and morimotoite: what's in a name?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal structure of an isotropic, single phase, Ti-rich schorlomite garnet, ideally Ca 3 Ti 4+ 2 (Fe 3+ 2 Si)O 12 , from Magnet Cove, Arkansas was refined with the Rietveld method, space group $Ia\overline 3 d$ , and monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction data. Electron-microprobe analysis gave an average composition {Ca 2.92 Na 0.04 Mn 2+ 0.03 Mg 0.01 } Σ3 [Ti 1.04 Fe 3+ 0.46 Mg 0.18 Fe 2+ 0.16 Zr 4+ 0.13 V 3+ 0.04 ] Σ2 (Si 2.21 Fe 3+ 0.71 Al 0.07 ) Σ3 O 12 , and corresponds to the general garnet formula of [8] X 3 [6] Y 2 [4] Z 3 [4] O 12 . Schorlomite is the dominant component, but the composition contains significant amounts (>15 mol.%) of andradite, Ca 3 (Fe 3+ 2 )Si 3 O 12 , morimotoite, Ca 3 (Ti 4+ Fe 2+ )Si 3 O 12 , and morimotoite-(Mg), Ca 3 (Ti 4+ Mg)Si 3 O 12 . The crystal structure model was refined well using isotropic and anisotropic displacement parameters. Using isotropic displacement parameters, the χ 2 and R ( F 2 ) Rietveld refinement values are 1.148 and 0.0742, respectively. The unit-cell parameter, a = 12.18599(1) (Å), is large for a natural schorlomite for which complete structural data are available. The bond distances are average <Ca–O> = 2.4461, Ti–O = 2.0085(5), Si–O = 1.7022(5) Å, and site occupancy factors ( sofs ) for Ca( sof ) = 0.963(1), Ti( sof ) = 1.045(1), and Si( sof ) = 1.150(2). Comparison of schorlomite data from the type locality in Magnet Cove with morimotoite from Ice River, Canada and the type locality in Japan show that they are quite similar and cast doubts as to morimotoite being different from schorlomite.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it