MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129651502 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.42.6.1881

"NAMED AMPHIBOLES": A NEW CATEGORY OF AMPHIBOLES RECOGNIZED BY THE INTERNATIONAL MINERALOGICAL ASSOCIATION (IMA), AND THE PROPER ORDER OF PREFIXES TO BE USED IN AMPHIBOLE NAMES

2004· article· en· W2129651502 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. A. J. Burke, Bernard E. Leake

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmphibolePrefixOrder (exchange)GeologyGeochemistryAssociation (psychology)MineralogyLinguisticsBusinessPsychologyPhilosophyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The IMA–CNMMN has now recognized a new category of names, “named amphiboles”, which can be published without its previous approval, so long as the names agree with its system of amphibole nomenclature. Generally in these cases, only the chemical composition and the symmetry, either monoclinic or orthorhombic, will be known. These are not new species of amphibole, and the IMA–CNMMN criteria for recognition of new species remain unchanged. In addition, for the first time, the order in which prefixes appear in amphibole names, whether in names of species or in “named amphiboles”, is here defined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations22
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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