Katophorite from the Jade Mine Tract, Myanmar: mineral description of a rare (grandfathered) endmember of the amphibole supergroup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Katophorite has the ideal formula ANaB(NaCa)C(Mg4Al)T(Si7Al)O22W(OH)2 (Hawthorne et al., 2012). No published analyses of amphiboles fall in the katophorite compositional field, except that of Harlow and Olds (1987) for an amphibole from near Hpakan in the Jade Mine Tract, Myanmar. This amphibole was approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (vote 2013-140) as katophorite, and is reported here. Holotype katophorite is monoclinic, space group C2/m, a = 9.8573(8), b = 17.9617(15), c = 5.2833(4) Å, β = 104.707(2)°, V = 904.78(13) Å3, Z = 2. The calculated density is 3.091 g cm–3. In plane-polarized light, katophorite is pleochroic, X = pale blue (medium), Y = light blue-green (strongest), Z = colourless; X ∧ a = 30.6° (β obtuse), Y || b, Z ∧ c = 15.8 (β acute). It is biaxial negative, α = 1.638, β = 1.642, γ = 1.644, all ± 0.002; 2Vobs = 73(1)°, 2Vcalc = 70°. The eight strongest lines in the powder X-ray diffraction pattern are [d in Å (I)(hkl)]: 2.700 (100)(151), 3.129 (69)(310), 2.536 (65)(202), 3.378 (61)(131), 8.421 (55)(110), 2.583 (46)(061), 2.942 (43)(221) and 2.334 (41)(351). Electron-microprobe analysis of the refined crystal gave SiO251.74, Al2O37.38, TiO2 0.14, FeO 1.55, Fe2O3 2.82, MgO 18.09, CaO 8.17, Na2O 6.02, K2O 0.24, F 0.06, H2Ocalc. 1.80, Li2Ocalc. 0.09, sum 100.55 wt.% (Li2O and H2O based on the results of single-crystal structure refinement). The formula unit, calculated on the basis of 24 (O,OH,F) with (OH + F + O) = 2 is: A(Na0.85K0.04)Σ=0.89B(Ca1.22Na0.78)Σ=2.00C(Mg3.76Al0.43Fe0.303+Cr0.273+Fe0.182+Li0.05Ti0.014+)Σ=5.00T(Si7.21Al0.79)Σ=8.00O22W[(OH)1.67O0.30F0.03)]Σ=2.00.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".