MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162777973 · doi:10.1180/0026461046810182

Nomenclature of amphiboles: additions and revisions to the International Mineralogical Association's amphibole nomenclature

2004· article· en· W2162777973 on OpenAlexaff
B. E. Leake, A. R. Woolley, W. D. Birch, E. A. J. Burke, Giovanni Ferraris, Joel D. Grice, F. C. Hawthorne, Hanan J. Kisch, В. Г. Кривовичев, John C. Schumacher, N. C. N. Stephenson, E. J. W. Whittaker

Bibliographic record

VenueMineralogical Magazine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Museum of Nature
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmphiboleGroup (periodic table)GeochemistryNomenclatureGeologyMineralogyChemistryPaleontologyBiologyOrganic chemistryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The introduction of a fifth amphibole group, the Na-Ca-Mg-Fe-Mn-Li group, defined by 0.50 < B(Mg,Fe2+,Mn2+,Li) < 1.50 and 0.50 ≤ B(Ca,Na) ≤ 1.50 a.f.p.u. (atoms per formula unit), with members whittakerite and ottoliniite, has been required by recent discoveries of B(LiNa) amphiboles. This, and other new discoveries, such as sodicpedrizite (which, here, is changed slightly, but significantly, from the original idealized formula), necessitate amendments to the IMA 1997 definitions of the Mg-Fe-Mn-Li, calcic, sodic-calcic and sodic groups. The discovery of obertiite and the finding of an incompatibility in the IMA 1997 subdivision of the sodic group, requires further amendments within the sodic group. All these changes, which have IMA approval, are summarized.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations354
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralogical MagazineSame topicCrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207