MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137772820 · doi:10.2138/am.2005.1609

Fundamental difference between synthetic powder and natural or synthetic single-crystal 1M micas: Geometric homo-octahedral vs. geometric meso-octahedral sheets

2005· article· en· W2137772820 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick H. J. Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mineralogist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicX-ray Diffraction in Crystallography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOctahedronMicaPowder diffractionCrystallographyMaterials scienceGroup (periodic table)Vacancy defectSingle crystalCrystal (programming language)Crystal structureSeries (stratigraphy)ChemistryMetallurgyGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on powder X-ray diffraction (pXRD) measurements of many mica solid solution series of synthetic powder samples (between Mg, Co, Ni, and Fe end-members, with different degrees of oxidation, vacancy, and Al/Si contents, and including an OH/F substitution series; 75 samples indexed as 1M polytype, space group C2/m) and on 175 previously published structural refinements of 1M micas (refined in space group C2/m) comprising 37 synthetic and 138 natural single-crystal samples, we show that the relation (c/a) cos β* = 1/3 between the a, c, and β monoclinic lattice parameters (β* = 180E - β), holds exactly (within experimental error) for all the synthetic powder samples whereas it does not hold in general for the natural or synthetic single crystal samples. This relation is not imposed by the C2/m space group. It is predicted to hold for geometric homo-octahedral sheets (having equal M1 and M2 site bond-lengths) and predicted not to hold in general for geometric meso-octahedral sheets (having unequal M1 and M2 site bond lengths). We conclude that synthetic powder samples (usually having particle diameters in the range 0.1.20 μm) are geometric homo-octahedral whereas single crystals (typical size of 0.05 × 0.05 × 0.01 mm or larger) are geometric meso-octahedral, with either M1 > M2 (most common, 153 samples out of 175) or M1 < M2. The geometric meso-octahedral character of the single crystals is corroborated by several parameters of the structure refinements. The synthetic powders presumably appear not to have had the time to equilibrate into a minimal free energy state, possibly because average diffusion hoping times occurring in those syntheses (compared to synthesis times) are larger than under synthesis conditions that lead to single-crystals (e.g., fluxing agents used in single-crystal syntheses, geological conditions of natural samples), whereas all the single crystal samples have to some extent exploited the free energy advantage of sorting smaller and larger cations into distinct crystallographic sites in a geometric meso-octahedral sheet structure. These results suggest further experimental work in which the conditions for and kinetics of octahedral M1/M2 chemical ordering could be studied.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican MineralogistSame topicX-ray Diffraction in CrystallographyFrench-language works237,207