Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal structure of one isotropic [(1) Brazil] and three birefringent spessartine samples [(2) California, (3) Tanzania, and (4) Colorado] were refined using the Rietveld method, cubic space group $Ia\overline 3 d$ , and monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) data. The results of electron-microprobe analysis (EMPA) indicate homogeneous compositions, in terms of end-members, as follows: (1) Sps 54 Alm 43 , (2) Sps 90 Alm 8 , (3) Sps 64 Prp 27 Grs 3 , and (4) Sps 73 Alm 19 . Their crystal structures were modeled well as indicated by the Rietveld refinement statistics where the reduced χ 2 and overall R ( F 2 ) values for each sample are: (1) 1.395 and 0.0329, (2) 1.082 and 0.0354, (3) 1.025 and 0.0347, and (4) 1.016 and 0.0413. Two cubic phases occur in samples 2–4, and a single cubic phase occurs in sample-1. The dominant cubic phase-1 with locality, weight fraction (%), unit-cell parameter (Å), distances (Å), and site occupancy factors ( sofs ) are as follows: (1) Brazil: 100%, a = 11.581 54 (1), average = 2.3156, Al–O = 1.8949 (3), Si–O = 1.6376 (3) Å, Mn( sof ) = 0.961(1), Al( sof ) = 0.945(1), and Si( sof ) = 0.936(1); (2) California: 96.67(7)%, a = 11.613 32(1), average = 2.3249, Al–O = 1.8956 (4), Si–O = 1.6416 (4) Å, Mn( sof ) = 0.951(1), Al( sof ) = 0.946(1), and Si( sof ) = 0.927(1); (3) Tanzania: 69.46(6)%, a = 11.598 45(1), average = 2.3199, Al–O = 1.8964 (5), Si–O = 1.6398 (5) Å, Mn( sof ) = 0.808(1), Al( sof ) = 0.942(1), and Si( sof ) = 0.922(1); and (4) Colorado: 98.58(6)%, a = 11.606 89(1), average = 2.3204, Al-O = 1.8948 (6), Si–O = 1.6450 (6) Å, Mn( sof ) = 0.949(1), Al( sof ) = 0.967(2), and Si( sof ) = 0.913(2). The two-phase intergrowth causes strain that arises from mismatch of the structural parameters and gives rise to strain-induced birefringence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".