MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164857584 · doi:10.3749/canmin.46.2.403

FROM STRUCTURE TOPOLOGY TO CHEMICAL COMPOSITION. III. TITANIUM SILICATES: THE CRYSTAL CHEMISTRY OF BARYTOLAMPROPHYLLITE

2008· article· en· W2164857584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elena Sokolova, Fernando Cámara

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTitaniumChemical compositionCrystal chemistryCrystal structureComposition (language)MineralogyCrystallographyChemistryMaterials scienceTopology (electrical circuits)MetallurgyMathematicsOrganic chemistryArtCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crystal structure of barytolamprophyllite, ideally (BaK) Na 3 Ti 3 (Si 2 O 7 ) 2 O 2 (OH) 2 , a 19.8971(7), b 7.1165(3), c 5.4108(2) A, β 96.676(2)°, V 760.96(3) A 3 , space group C 2/ m , Z = 2, D calc. 3.521 g.cm −3 , from Mt. Yuksporr, Khibina alkaline massif, Kola Peninsula, Russia, has been refined to R 1 = 2.82% on the basis of 1175 unique reflections ( F o > 4σ F ) collected on a Bruker AXS SMART APEX diffractometer with a CCD detector and Mo K α radiation. An electron-microprobe analysis gave (wt.%): SiO 2 29.31, Al 2 O 3 0.16, Nb 2 O 5 0.11, TiO 2 28.39, Fe 2 O 3 0.49, FeO 2.66, MnO 2.42, MgO 0.26, CaO 0.88, SrO 4.11, BaO 16.37, K 2 O 3.52, Na 2 O 7.90, F 1.69, H 2 O 0.77 (calculated from structure refinement), O=F −0.71, for a total of 98.33. The empirical formula is (Ba 0.88 K 0.61 Sr 0.33 Ca 0.05 □ 0.13 ) ∑2.00 (Na 2.09 Fe 2+ 0.30 Mn 2+ 0.28 Ca 0.08 Mg 0.05 □ 0.20 ) ∑3.00 (Ti 2.91 Fe 3+ 0.05 Al 0.03 Nb 0.01 ) ∑3.00 (Si 2 O 7 ) 2 O 2 [F 0.73 (OH) 0.70 O 0.57 ] ∑2.00 , Z = 2, calculated on the basis of 4 Si apfu . The crystal structure of barytolamprophyllite can be described as a combination of two blocks, a TS (titanium silicate) block and an I (intermediate) block. The TS block consists of HOH sheets (H heteropolyhedral, O octahedral), which occur in 24 Ti disilicate minerals. In the TS block, there are six cation sites, a [4]-coordinated Si site with = 1.631 A, two Ti-dominant sites, the [5]-coordinated M H site and [6]-coordinated M °(1) site, and two [6]-coordinated Na-dominant sites, M °(2) and M °(3). The M H site (= Ti 1.97 Al 0.03 pfu ) is coordinated by five O atoms, with H –O> = 1.914 A; the M °(1) site (= Ti 0.94 Fe 3+ 0.05 Nb 0.01 pfu ) is coordinated by four O atoms and two OH groups, with = 1.993 A; the M °(2) and M °(3) sites (= Na 1.00 and Na 1.09 Fe 2+ 0.30 Mn 2+ 0.28 Ca 0.08 Mg 0.05 □ 0.20 pfu , respectively) are coordinated by six O atoms with = 2.441 A, and four O atoms and two OH groups, with = 2.296 A, respectively. The M H square pyramid and (Si 2 O 7 ) groups constitute the H sheet. The M°(1–3) octahedra form the close-packed O sheet. Linkage of H and O sheets occurs via common vertices of M H square pyramids and (Si 2 O 7 ) groups with M°(1–3) octahedra. The second or intermediate I block includes the [10]-coordinated A P site (= Ba 0.88 K 0.61 Sr 0.33 Ca 0.05 □ 0.13 pfu ) with A P –O> = 2.843 A. The TS block and the I block (which ideally is a layer of Ba and K atoms) alternate along a . The ideal formula of barytolamprophyllite is (BaK) Na 3 Ti 3 (Si 2 O 7 ) 2 O 2 (OH) 2 , Z = 2. The topology of its structure is identical to that of lamprophyllite, (SrNa) Na 3 Ti 3 (Si 2 O 7 ) 2 O 2 (OH) 2 , and nabalamprophyllite, Ba Na Na 3 Ti 3 (Si 2 O 7 ) 2 O 2 (OH) 2 . We explain why, for lamprophyllite, barytolamprophyllite and nabalamprophyllite, the chemical composition of the I block is of the form (A 2+ A + ) with a total charge of 3+, and the ideal formula of the minerals is (A 2+ A + ) Na 3 Ti 3 (Si 2 O 7 ) 2 O 2 (OH) 2 , where A 2+ = Sr 2+ , Ba 2+ , Ca 2+ ; A + = Na + , K + .

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicCrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207