MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103807176 · doi:10.2138/am.2012.3887

Redetermination of the structure of 5C pyrrhotite at low temperature and at room temperature

2012· article· en· W2103807176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David C. Liles, J. P. R. de Villiers

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrrhotiteCrystal structureCrystallographyGroup (periodic table)Vacancy defectCopperChemistryCrystal (programming language)MineralogyGeologyMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structure of a 5C pyrrhotite from Silberberg Mine, Bodenmais, Germany, has been determined at 120 and 293 K in space group P21. The low-temperature structure refined to R = 0.0261 for 5727 data with Io > 2σ(Io) and R = 0.0354 for all 7121 data. The room-temperature structure of the same crystal refined to R = 0.0383 for 2471 data with Io > 2σ(Io) and R = 0.0550 for all 3419 data. In addition, the diffraction data of a 5C pyrrhotite crystal from Copper Cliff Mine, Sudbury, Canada, previously refined in space group Cmce, has been transformed and also refined in space group P21. This structure refined to R = 0.0441 for 2701 data with Io > 2σ(Io) and R = 0.0672 for all 3843 data, which is a substantial improvement over the previous refinement. The structure is characterized by iron vacancy avoidance within a layer, and with partially occupied sites projecting on top of each other in adjacent layers. Two half-occupied sites and two sites each with occupancy of 0.88 are present in the Bodenmais structure, together with one site with occupancy of 0.28. The distribution in the crystal from Sudbury is slightly different and cannot be described with the same number of partially occupied sites. Broadly, however, the two structures are similar.

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 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 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207