MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156848124 · doi:10.2465/jmps.080402

Phase relations of nahcolite and trona at high P-T conditions

2009· article· en· W2156848124 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xi Liu, Michael E. Fleet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical and Physical Properties in Aqueous Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermodynamicsPhase boundaryPhase diagramHydrothermal circulationBoundary (topology)Phase (matter)Bar (unit)ChemistryMineralogyMaterials scienceGeologyPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using cold-seal hydrothermal bomb and piston-cylinder apparatus, we have carried out both forward and reversal experiments to investigate the phase boundary between nahcolite (NaHCO3) and trona (NaHCO3·Na2CO3·2H2O). We found that the temperature of this phase boundary remains low at least up to 10 kbar, so that this phase transformation maintains its univariant nature in our investigated P-T space. The locus of this phase boundary in a log(pCO2)-T space is defined as log(pCO2) = 0.0240(±0.0001)T − 9.80(±0.06) (with pCO2 in bar and T in K), in excellent agreement with earlier 1 atm experiments at different partial pressures of CO2 (pCO2) and theoretical calculation. Using this equation and literature thermodynamic data, the entropy of trona at 298.15 K is constrained to be 303.8 J mol−1 K−1, essentially identical to earlier estimates from different methods. Our experimental results have also been used to constrain the genesis of nahcolite in some fluid inclusions of diverse origins, and it is suggested that nahcolite in these occurrences is most likely a daughter mineral which crystallized from the fluids as temperature decreased, rather than an accidentally trapped phase.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mineralogical and Petrological SciencesSame topicChemical and Physical Properties in Aqueous SolutionsFrench-language works237,207