The effects of composition upon the high-pressure behaviour of amphiboles: compression of gedrite to 7 GPa and a comparison with anthophyllite and proto-amphibole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A single-crystal X-ray diffraction study of a sample of natural gedrite from North Carolina, USA, with the crystal-chemical formula ANa0.47B(Na0.03Mg0.97Fe0.942+Mn0.02Ca0.04)C(Mg3.52Fe0.282+Al1.15Ti0.054+)T(Si6.31Al1.69)O22W(OH)2, up to a maximum pressure of 7 GPa, revealed the following bulk and axial moduli and their pressure derivatives: K0T = 91.2(6) GPa [K0T' = 6.3(2)]; K0T(a) = 60.5(6) GPa [K0T(a)' = 6.1(2)]; K0T(b) = 122.8(2.6) GPa [K0T(b)' = 5.7(8)]; K0T (c) = 119.7(1.5) GPa [K0T(c)' = 5.1(5)]. Gedrite has a much higher bulk modulus than anthophyllite (66 GPa) and proto-amphibole (64 GPa). All of the three axial moduli of gedrite are higher than those of these two other orthoamphiboles. The greater stiffness of gedrite along [100] is due to its high ANa content, which is almost zero in anthophyllite and proto-amphibole. The much greater stiffness parallel to the (100) plane of gedrite compared with the two other amphiboles is probably due to its high CAl content. A comparison is made with published data available for orthorhombic B(Mg, Mn, Fe) and monoclinic BCa amphiboles to identify correlations between crystal-chemistry and compressibility in amphiboles.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".