Status of the reference X-ray powder-diffraction patterns for the serpentine minerals in the PDF database—1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical examination of the reference X-ray powder-diffraction patterns of the serpentine minerals in the Powder-Diffraction File (PDF) database has revealed an unsettling situation. Most of the patterns in, or previously in, the PDF database are inaccurate, misidentified, or of poor quality. The PDF database is not a dependable tool for identifying the serpentine minerals, and has not been since the mid-1960s. This has serious implications for studies on serpentine minerals that have depended on the PDF database, particularly those by nonmineralogists doing health and environmental studies of chrysotile asbestos. In the current PDF database, lizardite-1 T , carlosturanite, some amesite, and possibly some antigorite (but with inappropriate polytype symbols) can be identified. Only one of the many multilayer lizardites can be identified. The current pattern for chrysotile-2 M c 1 (clinochrysotile) is of reasonable quality, but not the best, however the earlier patterns still in the database are so problematic that any chrysotile-2 M c 1 identification must be considered suspect. Chrysotile-2 O c 1 (orthochrysotile), and any mixture of serpentines cannot be identified using the PDF database. Until the reference serpentine patterns are corrected the PDF database cannot be considered a reliable identification tool. High-quality powder-diffraction patterns of the serpentine minerals have been published and can be rapidly introduced into the PDF database.© 2000 International Centre for Diffraction Data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.028 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".