MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113750501 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.42.6.1667

CRYSTAL GROWTH OF SCHOEPITE ON THE (104) SURFACE OF CALCITE

2004· article· en· W2113750501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Schindler, Andrew Putnis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciteCrystal (programming language)GeologyGeochemistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schoepite, [(UO2)8O2(OH)12](H2O)12, precipitates through interaction of acidic and basic uranyl solutions with calcite. The uranyl solutions have (UO2)2+ concentrations between 1.5 and 50 mmol L–1, and initial pH values of 2.5, 4.5 and 10.0. Examina-tions with the atomic force microscope (AFM) reveal different morphologies of schoepite crystals grown on the (104) surface of calcite. Crystals grown during in situ experiments with uranyl nitrate solutions (initial pH = 2.5) have a platy morphology, and their prominent (001) faces are defined by [210] edges. Crystals grown during in situ experiments with uranyl acetate solution (initial pH = 4.5) seem more bulky, with poorly defined rectangular (001) faces. Examinations of calcite surfaces after interaction with a slightly acidic solution for three days (final pH between 5.5 and 6.5) show platy asymmetrical crystals with prominent (001) faces that are defined by [100], [010], [120], and [110] edges. Experiments with basic solutions after three weeks (final pH between 7.5 and 8.0) show bulky rectangular crystals of schoepite, in which the (001) face is mainly defined by [100] and [010] edges. The different thicknesses of schoepite crystals in the in situ experiments are explained by the different growth-rates of S and F faces in solutions with different saturation-indices with respect to schoepite. The occurrence of edges on the (001) face of schoepite crystals is explained by structural parameters of the chains of polyhedra parallel to the edges and the pH of the solution.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207