MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195452219 · doi:10.1180/minmag.2015.079.2.15

Natural occurrence of monoclinic Fe<sub>3</sub>S<sub>4</sub> nano-precipitates in pyrrhotite from the Sudbury ore deposit: a Z-contrast imaging and density functional theory study

2015· article· en· W2195452219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Huifang Xu, Zhizhang Shen, Hiromi Konishi

Bibliographic record

VenueMineralogical Magazine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Extraction and Bioleaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPyrrhotiteMonoclinic crystal systemCrystallographyOctahedronMaterials scienceCrystal structureCrystal (programming language)Nano-MineralogyGreigiteGeologyChemistryPyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A monoclinic form of Fe 3 S 4 , a polymorph of cubic greigite, occurs as precipitates in a sample of pyrrhotite collected from the Sudbury ore deposit. The nano-crystal precipitates are in a topotaxial relationship with the host pyrrhotite-4C (Fe 7 S 8 ). The precipitate and the host pyrrhotite have a coherent (001) interface. Half of the octahedral layers in the crystal structure are fully occupied by Fe, while the other half of the octahedral layers are occupied by Fe atoms and vacancies in an ordered manner along the a axis. The crystal structure of the Fe 3 S 4 nano-precipitates has monoclinic symmetry with a space group of I 2/ m . Its c dimension is 6% smaller than that of the host pyrrhotite due to the large number of vacancies in the structure. Fractional coordinates for S and Fe atoms within the unit cell are determined from Z-contrast images and density functional theory (DFT). The calculated results match the measured values very well. It is proposed that the monoclinic Fe 3 S 4 nano-precipitates formed through ordering of vacancies in pyrrhotite with a low Fe/S ratio (i.e. &lt;0.875) at low temperature.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralogical MagazineSame topicMetal Extraction and BioleachingFrench-language works237,207